Preamble

THE
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

OFFICIAL REPORT

IN THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE FORTY-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

WHICH OPENED 1st NOVEMBER. 1978

TWENTY-SEVENTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF

HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II

THIRD VOLUME OF SESSION 1978–79

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what resolution he expects to the general agreement on tariffs and trade multilateral negotiations by mid-December; and what part he is playing in those negotiations.

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. John Smith): I hope that the negotiators will be able substantially to complete their work next month, although ratification of the results by the EEC Council must wait on a satisfactory resolution of the United States countervailing duty waiver problem. I represented the United Kingdom at the Council discussion on 21st November of the EEC approach to the

final stages of the negotiations and expect to play a full part in any further such discussion or other important but less formal discussions.

Mr. Renton: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish the Secretary of State well in his difficult role at the talks, bearing in mind the United Kingdom's dependence on the growth and increasing liberalisation of world trade. When does the right hon. Gentleman think the United States will pass a new Bill waiving the imposition of countervailing duties? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the talks can be meaningfully concluded in Geneva before such a Bill is passed?

Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. These are indeed extremely complex and complicated negotiations, involving a wide variety of interests. They pose problems for every country. But we are seized of the great difficulty that there would be for world trade if there were a failure in the current round of negotiations.
As for the United States' internal position, we accept the assurances of the United States Administration that they will do what they can to try to resolve the problem. In line with, I think, the majority of Community countries, we are happy to see it make such progress as it can.
I cannot remember the hon. Gentleman's other point.

Mr. Renton: I asked whether the talks could be concluded before such a Bill was passed.

Mr. Smith: In this connection the United Kingdom and, I think, the majority of Community countries draw a distinction between the completion of negotiations and the conclusion of an agreement. It is the settled view of the Community that there is no question of our concluding an agreement until the Congressional problem has been solved.

Dr. Bray: I wish my right hon. Friend well in the multilateral trade negotiations, but is he aware that there is another set of trade negotiations in danger of breaking down today? Will he use his best offices to make sure that the commodity negotiations are brought to a successful conclusion?

Mr. Smith: We have been following the negotiations in Geneva very closely. Indeed, I received reports about them over the weekend. I do not think that the danger of a breakdown is quite as serious as was reported in some of the newspapers today. But, clearly, they are very difficult negotiations. They have been going on for a very long time. There requires to be flexibility on both sides of the argument, but we very much believe that it is important not only for international trade but for the maintenance of a meaningful North-South dialogue that the negotiations be brought to a conclusion.

Mr. Forman: As one of the main difficulties in these long-running negotiations concerns national subsidies to ailing or vulnerable industries, can the Secretary of State give us any guidance as to how much of the trade between developed countries is now affected by those subsidies, and what are the prospects of multilaterally reducing them?

Mr. Smith: This is an extremely difficult area of the negotiations, because it is extremely difficult to detect just what subsidies are in operation and how they affect trade. Such things as the movements of currency can be regarded as affecting world trade just as much as overt actions by Governments to support their industries. I can go no further than to say that we are examining the matter carefully. There are some actions that the United Kingdom Government take in connection with the regeneration of our industry and

the development of our regional development policy that we regard as very important.

Film Industry

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has any immediate plans to meet representatives of the film industry.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will be providing preliminary information prior to the drafting of legislation to establish a British film authority; and, if so, in what form this will be provided and when.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Michael Meacher): My right hon. Friend and I are always ready to meet representatives of the film industry. I have had discussions with the representatives of the British Film Producers Association, the Association of Independent Producers, the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association and the Association of Independent Cinemas. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has also met the chairman of the Interim Action Committee and some of his colleagues. I hope to make a statement at about the turn of the year regarding future legislation.

Mr. Durant: Can the Minister therefore say that there will be some legislation on the matter during this Parliament, or that there will not? We should like clarification as to whether or not there is a definite intention to legislate. This is the point that is causing the anxiety.

Mr. Meacher: We certainly intend legislation in this Parliament, in the form of a National Film Finance Corporation Bill, because we are committed to ensuring that the NFFC has enough funds for the next five years, or until it is subsumed under the British film authority. We are certainly committed to ensuring that its funds do not run out in this Session.

Association of British Travel Agents

Mr. Corbett: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent meetings he has had with the Association of British Travel Agents.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I am meeting the president and other representatives of the


Association of British Travel Agents tomorrow.

Mr. Corbett: When my hon. Friend has such a meeting, will he ask ABTA whether it can devise more effective ways for its members to make clear their membership of the association to customers who walk in off the street, in order to protect customers who deal with non-ABTA members and subsequently run into disputes about their holidays? Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of firms, including such firms as Odyssey Travel, trading from Oxford Street, are not ABTA members and do not advertise the fact that they are not, and it would be better if ways could be found by ABTA to have a clear and distinctive sign to encourage members of the public to notice with whom they are dealing?

Mr. Davis: I do not think that the problem arises among those who are members of ABTA. If they are members of ABTA, I am sure that they take every opportunity to advertise that fact. The trouble arises with people who are not members of ABTA. However, I suggest that if my hon. Friend has any specific problem that I can broach with ABTA when its representatives come to see me tomorrow, he should give me details of it.

Aircraft Flights (Remembrance Sunday)

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will seek to arrange that aircraft will not be allowed to take off from airports near built-up areas during the half-hour when outdoor services are held before the two minutes silence on Remembrance Sunday.

Mr. Clinton Davis: There are restrictions on aircraft taking off from Heathrow and Gatwick to ensure that the two minutes silence is not broken, but a prohibition on take-offs for half an hour would impose unacceptable constraints on the handling of air traffic. Arrangements at other airports are primarily a matter for the airport authorities concerned.

Mr. Jessel: What about what is acceptable to people on the ground? Cannot the hon. Member show rather more respect to the quite large number of people who, for just half an hour every year, want to concentrate on remembering those who

laid down their lives for the country in two world wars? For example, at Twickenham last Remembrance Sunday, a fortnight ago, 400 people were interrupted during the half-hour service nine times by aircraft taking off. Cannot he take another look at this?

Mr. Davis: I am sympathetic towards the comments of the hon. Member. However, what he suggests would lead to very great difficulties about the stacking of aircraft. Already a constraint is imposed so that there are no take-offs during the period just before and just after the two minutes silence. As for the hon. Member's comments about Twickenham, this is the first complaint that I have received. Generally speaking, over the years very few complaints on this matter have been received.

Multi-Fibre Arrangement

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the operation of the multi-fibre arrangement.

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied that all the countries involved are observing the multi-fibre arrangement.

Mr. John Smith: There were bound to be some problems in the first year of operation of new and complicated arrangements, but I am satisfied that they are now operating broadly as was intended.

Mr. Madden: May I also welcome my right hon. Friend's new appointment and trust that he will show sympathy towards the problems of the textile industry? In this connection, is my right hon. Friend concerned about the present and potential imports of blankets and other textile products from Eastern Europe, Spain, Portugal and Greece? As there are to be separate quotas for the first time next year for blankets, will my right hon. Friend agree to meet a deputation from the British Blanket Manufacturers' Association, which is most concerned about the upsurge of imported blankets?

Mr. John Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his good wishes, and certainly I shall pay careful attention to the needs of the British textile industry. He will appreciate that this Government have done more than any other, especially


through the multi-fibre arrangement in terms of product coverage and future growth of imports, to protect the interests of our textile industry. We have noted the position about blankets and, of course, I shall be very glad to meet a delegation.

Mr. Lamond: Although I recognise what the Government have achieved in these arrangements, is not it correct that there has been a 15 per cent. increase in value terms already this year over last year? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern among all in the textile industry, many of whom were very strong supporters of the EEC, about the extension of the EEC to include countries from which further low-cost textiles will be admitted into the EEC?

Mr. John Smith: Dealing with my hon. Friend's first question about the levels of imports, he will bear in mind that some of the imports are re-exports and that some are consignments which reached the country before the 1978 quota came into operation. He will also bear in mind that the MFA took as its base the 1976 levels of imports and that there was a decline in 1977, so that some increase was bound to occur under the agreement. I must emphasise that no quotas have been reached so far as we can detect, and we police these matters very vigorously.
As for other countries at present out-with the Community, no bilateral arrangements were reached with them. But arrangements were made and, where we think these have been breached, we have pursued the breaches very vigorously. As my hon. Friend will know, safeguard action has been taken against Turkey and Malta.

Mr. Tim Smith: Has the position with regard to imports of cotton yarn and knitted shirts from Greece improved? What is the present position as regards Portugal? Have the outstanding matters been agreed? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied generally with the enforcement arrangements?

Mr. John Smith: I can confirm that we have reached agreements about textile imports from Greece, Spain and Portugal.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Since thoughts are already turning to a renewal of the MFA eventually, will the right hon.

Gentleman advise the EEC that our country's national interest is very well served by a restraint on imports which has skilfully avoided any retaliation against our textile exports?

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member will know that the MFA will continue until 1982. However, the point of view which he expresses is one which the Government share completely and which we state as often as we can within the counsels of the Community.

Mr. Buchan: Is there any means whereby my right hon. Friend can use the measures in the multi-fibre arrangement to deal with the problem of the fibre involvement in the tyre industry? Is he aware that continuing imports of cheap tyres from Eastern Europe and the Far East are posing a great problem, especially to crossply tyres in areas such as my constituency and the India Tyre factory? Can anything be done to prevent it?

Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend will appreciate that his question is slightly wider than the multi-fibre arrangement—indeed, it is outwith its scope. However, I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been in touch with the tyre cord manufacturers on this matter and is pursuing the very question that my hon. Friend raised.

British Airways

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects next to meet the chairman of British Airways.

Mr. John Smith: I expect to meet the chairman very shortly.

Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend remind Sir Frank McFadzean that, as the former chairman of Shell, he ought to know all about Rhodesian sanctions busting and, therefore, should take immediate steps to stop British Airways from acting against the spirit, if not the letter, of the law by remitting profits from its Salisbury ticket office to a Swiss bank account? Will the Government order an immediate inquiry into this?

Mr. Smith: My meeting with Sir Frank McFadzean will be confined to his capacity as chairman of British Airways, and I hope to have an interesting discussion with him about that matter. As for the


other matter raised by my hon. Friend, I am looking at the arrangement to which he referred, and I cannot anticipate the outcome of my further investigations into it.

Mr. Warren: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairman, will he tell him that he is as well aware as his Department is of the way in which British Airways inhibits the sale of tickets on the sector between London and Gibraltar to the disadvantage of the people of Gibraltar and travellers from this country and, what is more, is making sure that those tickets are available to its own subsidiaries? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ask the chairman why, if his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence wish to travel on a night flight, they are charged a surcharge of £750 per flight to land at Gibraltar?

Mr. Smith: I am afraid that I cannot give specific answers to the hon. Member since I did not have notice that he intended to raise quite detailed matters concerning the operations of British Airways. Whether I raise that matter with Sir Frank McFadzean on an already full agenda is a matter that I shall have to consider further. But perhaps the hon. Member will give my Department more details of his concerns.

Mr. Greviile Janner: When my right hon. Friend sees the chairman, will he inquire whether Jewish passengers on British aircraft are still banned from landing in Syria, this being a matter that I have raised with him previously?

Mr. Smith: I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for aviation, and I understand that he has been in correspondence with my hon. Friend. I would rather leave the matter on that basis, because it may be possible to reach a satisfactory outcome.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the importance, particularly in these troubled times, to the United Kingdom of the air link with Northern Ireland, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a £70 return fare London to Belfast is appalling? Will he not therefore tell the chairman when he sees him that if he cannot cut costs and bring fares down the Minister will be obliged to support any pri-

vate operator which can offer a more reasonable service?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman will know more than most that there are some additional problems in travel to and from Northern Ireland. That of fares is one with which those who travel from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London are familiar, since it is the same price. But these are matters for the Civil Aviation Authority.

Mr. Nott: When the right hon. Gentleman sees the chairman of British Airways, he will presumably discuss fare structures in Europe. Could he perhaps make a statement in the House or inform the House on some occasion fairly soon where we stand on the reduction of European fares? I think that British Airways are keen to reduce them, but where does the matter stand? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) has said, fares are absurd.

Mr. Smith: There are some negotiations going on at the moment, and when a suitable opportunity occurs, I shall make a statement.

Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will seek to repeal the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964.

Mr. Meacher: No, Sir.

Mr. Hunt: Is the Minister aware that the Hairdressing Council set up under that Act has become a shambles, with the chairman acting in an autocratic and arbitrary way, the registrar dismissed and the police now making inquiries into the council's accounts? Since the two hon. Members who were members of that council have now resigned and there is therefore no public accountability of any kind, is it not time for that Act to be repealed and the council wound up and for us to start from scratch again?

Mr. Meacher: I am not sure about starting from scratch again, but if the 1964 Act has been infringed, members of the council can of course take action through the courts: if the chairman has acted in the way alleged or if there are other improprieties, it is possible either to appoint a new chairman or to make other changes using the procedures according to the regulations under schedule 1


of the 1964 Act. I certainly see no reason to change the 1964 Act while this opportunity exists to change the situation.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the Minister aware that I have just had my hair cut downstairs? [HON. MEMBERS:"Not very well."] I do not think that that had anything to do with the Hairdressing Council. Do we really need the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 at all?

Mr. Meacher: I can certainly compliment the hon. Gentleman on the achievement of the House of Commons barber. The 1964 Act was introduced as a Private Member's Bill, not a Government Bill. The only main change made was that the mandatory regulation proposed in the Bill was changed to a voluntary one.

Merchant Shipping (Soviet Bloc Competition)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent discussions he has had with other EEC Ministers about the difficulties caused to British merchant shipping by unfair competition from shipping of the Soviet bloc.

Mr. Goodlad: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when next he proposes to discuss shipping matters with his opposite number in the USSR.

Mr. David Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress he can report on the measures proposed to counter the Soviet maritime threat.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The Transport Ministers Council last week adopted a decision limited to monitoring all liner activities on the trade routes from the EEC to East Africa and Central America. Regrettably there was no disposition to proceed at present with the development of counter-measures to meet unfair competition, such as the Soviet threat. I expressed the United Kingdom's disappointment and urged further consideration of this issue. I have no plans for further discussions with the Soviet Minister. There is no point in this until progress has been made in resolving some of the specific issues of concern to us.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Minister aware that the House will share his disappointment that the Ministers have limited themselves to gathering further informa-

tion about the unfair competition which is clearly already taking place and has been taking place for some time? Is it not likely to be the result that the shipping companies of member countries will suffer further damage in the interim before a decision is taken to act to stop this threat?

Mr. Davis: This is a point which I have made because I believe that the evidence already is overwhelming in this regard. However, colleagues in the EEC take the view that monitoring is an essential precondition of taking any defensive measures, if they find that defensive measures are called for as a result of that procedure. I think that this is a longwinded way of going about the matter.

Mr. Goodlad: If it is decided that further measures are necessary, what measures will the Minister recommend should be taken?

Mr. Davis: We should be ill advised at this stage to advertise to the Soviet Union the precise steps that we would want to take if we could persuade our colleagues in the EEC to recognise the threat. But we have the powers.

Mr. Hunt: Will the Minister explain why the decision makes no reference to the Soviet threat? Will he accept from this side our welcome of some of the words that he has uttered in answer to this question? However, will he please explain his reference to"further consultations "? What further consultations has he in mind?

Mr. Davis: The omission of the specific Soviet threat is not a matter of our making. I have consistently tried to persuade colleagues in the EEC to use precisely those terms. The question of consultation will proceed before the next Transport Ministers Council and it will at my request cover a study—I hope I shall be able to persuade the Commission to undertake a study—of the defensive measures which need to be taken. Unless we get that right, I do not think that we have any real chance of securing an accommodation with the Soviet Union, which is what I want.

Mr. Litterick: What, if anything, does the Minister's Department know of the relationship between the cartelised freight charges now being made by our shipping


organisations and the actual costs to them of running their ships?

Mr. Davis: The conference system, which I think my hon. Friend is seeking to impugn, meets the approval not only of the shipowners but of the shippers whom they are intending to serve. There is a large shipper element in these discussions. If they felt that unfair advantage was being taken by the shipowners in the operation of the conference system, they would be the first to complain.

Mr. Adley: Since the Minister has described the EEC's efforts as longwinded, is there not a case for this country taking unilateral action on this matter, as the French have done, for example, over the oil measures? Is there anything in the Treaty of Rome which would prevent us from taking unilateral action?

Mr. Davis: It is not a question of the Treaty of Rome: it is a question whether such action would be useful and rational. I believe that if we did that, all that would happen is that we would expose ourselves to the blast of possible counter-measures by the Soviet Union without anybody else in Europe suffering. I simply do not believe that it is reasonable for us to adopt a unilateral design in this matter.

Mr. Parkinson: The Minister has already said that difficulties are being caused to our shipping industry by the Soviet bloc. He claims that it is difficult for us to take unilateral action. There is one unilateral action that we could take, and that is to cancel the Polish shipping order, which will result in dumped cut-price competition for our shipping industry and which was decided exclusively by his Government.

Mr. Davis: Uncharacteristically, the hon. Member has taken a totally irrelevant point. I am talking about the Soviet threat. Generally, when the Poles are members of conferences they adhere to the rules of conferences and there is much less difficulty in that regard. I think that the hon. Member's suggestion would promote further unemployment in the shipbuilding industry, which is a view that we on this side do not share.

Steel

Mr. John Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what were the imports

and exports of steel for the latest convenient period for which he has figures.

Mr. Meacher: In the 12 months ended October 1978, 3·85 million tonnes of ingots, semi-finished and finished steel were imported and 4·16 million tonnes were exported.

Mr. Ellis: Will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations because at least the figures are on the right side for the first time? However, my constituents who make steel, and who could make much more, still think that the import totals are too high. Will the Minister take into account rumours coming from British Steel that it is not satisfied with the European arrangements which are being negotiated and that there is some fiddling going on which is to our disadvantage?

Mr. Meacher: I am not quite sure to what my hon. Friend refers when he says that there is some"fiddling going on which is to our disadvantage ". I can assure him that the Commission, with our support, has established a base price scheme for a wide range of sensitive steel products. Imports from third countries which are below the base price are liable to anti-dumping regulations. The Commission has also negotiated voluntary restraint arrangements with 15 main countries which export to the EEC. These arrangements have restrained the growth of imports considerably. The Commission is now negotiating for 1979. We hope that not only will these measures be maintained but that they will be extended.

Mr. Tim Rentor: In the Minister's judgment, what in the past year has been the overall effect on the import-export balance of the Davignon proposals—for the European steel industry in general and the British Steel Corporation in particular?

Mr. Meacher: I cannot give a quantified answer. But there is no doubt that the Davignon proposals have introduced a measure of discipline, particularly within the EEC. That has assisted the balance of trade because there has been some restraint on the growth of imports into the EEC. There has been no significant export retaliation.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that the export of steel from this country would be facilitated if there were better


access to capital goods markets within Europe? Is he aware that fabricators within Europe often get cut price steel to supply to British process plant customers at a cheaper price than British fabricators can obtain in order to sell to European customers?

Mr. Meacher: That is a problem for the British Steel Corporation. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is suggesting that there are ways in which the Government can assist. If he is, we shall be glad to examine them.

Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the main import penetration problem is not from outside the EEC but from inside, particularly from West Germany? Does my hon. Friend admit that we have no powers to prevent this?

Mr. Meacher: I am aware that the Sheffield special steels industry has suffered badly in the past year, particularly from exports from Germany, Italy and, to some extent, France. The Secretary of State for Industry wrote to Commissioner Davignon about this. We have just had a reply. The Commissioner is now examining price practices for special steels on the basis of article 60 of the ECSC treaty and is looking at methods to improve price discipline by the harmonisation of price lists. This is not as much as we wanted but it is a helpful reply. We shall study it and reply soon.

Mr. Nott: The Minister mentioned the Sheffield steel industry. Are the Government supporting a policy of market sharing for domestic industries which are in temporary trouble, plus a minimum price which is agreed by the main producers in that industry? Several industries are now approaching the Government with such schemes which might come up against the EEC competition rules. What is the Government's policy on special industries which are in difficulty? What is the Government's position on market sharing and minimum prices?

Mr. Meacher: The Commission has already established a mandatory minimum price policy for three product groups and a non-mandatory guidance price system for another five product groups in the steel industry. Our policy is to seek the extension of this policy and to ensure that special steels are brought within the

ambit of this policy which, up to now, has been restricted to bulk steels.

Teesside Airport

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will reconsider his decision to give Teesside airport category C status.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The Government will keep the role of individual airports closely under review, but as of now I foresee a positive growth of traffic for Tees-side airport within its present status.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the current year it is expected that the traffic at Teesside airport will increase by about 70 per cent. and that the surpluses will more than double? Will the Minister therefore pay careful attention to the increase of business passing through the airport with a view to reconsidering the decision not to give the airport category B status?

Mr. Davis: I am glad to have confirmation of the information that I have received about the prospective growth in traffic of Teesside airport. This indicates that the category C status has not inhibited growth. I adhere to the view that it is not possible for the North-East to support two category B airports.

Mr. Brittan: Is the Minister aware that there will be considerable disquiet about his answer, in view of the figures mentioned by the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth)? Is he aware that many people who are most directly involved with the airport find the arguments for refusing to give category B status to the airport wholly unconvincing?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Member might assert that, but I hope that the evidence about growth will give the lie to the argument that a stigma attaches to category C status. In the face of the overwhelming evidence, I cannot resile from the judgment that I have made.

Companies (South Africa)

Mr. Whitney: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether other EEC Governments have yet fulfilled the expectation he declared on 25th May 1978 that they would follow a reporting format for their national companies operating in South


Africa similar to Annex 3 of Command Paper No. 7233.

Mr. John Smith: The West German and Belgian Governments have sent the United Kingdom reporting format to their employers' organisations and the Danish Government have sent out a reporting instruction based upon the United Kingdom White Paper which was at the same time enclosed for information.
We shall continue to impress upon our partners in the Nine our strong views in favour of a common reporting format.

Mr. Whitney: Does the Secretary of State accept that, although it is important that there should be a steady improvement in the working conditions of black people in South Africa, it is also important that the British Government do nothing to put British companies in South Africa at a disadvantage compared with their international competitors?

Mr. Smith: We believe that the code takes account of the realities of the situation in a practical way. If it were more widely adopted we would make progress. The United Kingdom has taken a useful lead in this matter.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend ensure not only that all the EEC Governments accede to the code of conduct but that they take active steps to ensure that it is operated? Does he agree that while the evil of apartheid is allowed to continue it is essential that Britain should be seen not to be contributing towards making circumstances even worse for the black workers of South Africa?

Mr. Smith: I agree with the necessity of seeing practical results. That is why we did not leave the matter on the basis of accord but sought to achieve agreement on a reporting format. The United Kingdom has taken a lead. We shall continue to press our views upon the Nine. We have commended the formula to all the OECD countries. We shall continue to do so.

Tourism Projects

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will now take steps to amend the guidelines applicable to section 4 of the

Development of Tourism Act 1969 so that aid can be made available nationally to suitable projects, rather than remain restricted to development areas only.

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what plans he has to extend the areas of the United Kingdom eligible for financial assistance under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Meacher: As my right hon. Friend announced in a Written Answer on 22nd November, the Government have decided to make this assistance available in future in intermediate areas as well as development and special development areas to which it had previously been confined. We shall review the eligible areas in two or three years' time.

Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that judging from that answer constituencies such as mine, which are dependent on the tourist industry, will not receive the assistance to which they are entitled? Is he aware that the Isle of Wight is trying to extend its season and that it needs substantial financial input to improve facilities? Other parts of the country such as North Wales are receiving substantial sums. Is it not time that the scheme was operated on a countrywide basis rather than the money going to the intermediate and development areas?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Member is wrong in his original premise. About two-thirds of the Government's tourism budget is spent across the whole country. It is not limited to development and intermediate areas. We are talking here about the bricks and mortar provided for in section 4 of the 1969 Act. For that the budget is £2 million to be paid in the next year to the development areas. To provide the extra £1½ it seemed best to restrict the allocation to the intermediate areas otherwise the butter would be spread too thinly.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that there are different criteria for helping the tourist industry? Why is he so much against the South of England which could make a contribution if it were to receive help from the Government?

Mr. Meacher: We are not against assisting the South of England. Promotional expenditure is not regionally limited. It goes to the whole country. Considerable benefit is derived from that. We have to decide how a relatively small amount of assistance for building and projects can be best spent. Our view is that it should be limited to those areas which have considerable unexploited tourist potential and a high unemployment level.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that in the Aberdeen area there is a considerable welcome for the proposal to extend tourism assistance to intermediate areas, a move that is long overdue? What estimate has the Minister made of the additional employment what will be created by this decision?

Mr. Meacher: I cannot give a direct answer to that question because it will depend upon the way in which the money is spent. I estimate, however, that it will involve at least a few hundred new jobs.

Manufactured Imports

Mr. Litterick: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what proportion of United Kingdom imports consisted of manufactured goods during the latest 12-month period for which figures are available; and what was the corresponding proportion five years ago.

Mr. Meacher: In the 12 months ended October 1978, imports of manufactured goods accounted for 63 per cent. by value of our total imports, compared with a figure of 56 per cent. for the year 1973.

Mr. Litterick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer, but does he not agree that its meaning is catastrophic for the British economy? Is he aware that much of the increase in the importation of manufactured goods arises from decisions by large multinational companies to import manufactured goods into Britain as a matter of company policy? Is he further aware that this has nothing to do with the operation of any alleged laws of free trade? Does he agree, therefore, that this points to the urgent need for planning agreements which incorporate international trading policy?

Mr. Meacher: I do not believe that the situation is as catastrophic as my hon.

Friend suggests. It probably represents a structural change in the pattern of our imports which brings the level of imports of manufactures in the United Kingdom more or less into line with the position in Germany, France and the United States. If anything, the import propensity for manufactured goods has been higher in those countries since 1973.
On the second part of the question, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I strongly urge the expansion of planning agreements to ensure that the multinational companies and the nation achieve their objectives.

Mr. Eyre: Does the Minister understand that the figures he has quoted illustrating the relative decline of manufacturing industry in the past four years have particularly damaging consequences for jobs and living standards in the West Midlands where Coventry, Birmingham and the Black Country are so heavily dependent on this kind of industry? Does he realise that the latest increase in the minimum lending rate will worsen the situation in that it will lead to less vital investment being made in the future?

Mr. Meacher: The minimum lending rate is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In no sense did the figures I gave suggest that there had necessarily been a relative decline in manufacturing. Although there has been an increase in the level of manufactured imports, that was more or less matched by an increase in the level of manufactured exports. Last year our manufactured exports grew by 8 per cent., which was twice the increase in world trade.

Vehicle Bulbs

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will institute a sample quality control on vehicle bulbs for which import licences have been requested and refuse such licences when the quality is inferior to that of British-produced bulbs.

Mr. Meacher: As vehicle bulbs may be freely imported into the United Kingdom without the need for importers to obtain individual import licences, I receive no requests for licences for these products.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my hon. Friend look at the serious situation which has arisen


in British industry, particularly in my constituency, as a result of the flood of bulbs from Korea and Taiwan which could lead to unemployment? Even more important, will my hon. Friend consider the extent to which the inferior quality of the light from these bulbs makes road accidents more likely?

Mr. Meacher: We have received no requests from the Lighting Industry Federation for restrictions on these imports. It has tried to assemble a European antidumping investigation about domestic light bulbs but not about vehicle light bulbs. The safety aspect to which my hon. Friend referred is a matter for the Department of Transport, which is considering a request for the provisions of EEC regulation No. 37, which provides for acceptable standards of vehicle bulbs in the United Kingdom, to be made mandatory.

Marine Oil Pollution

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade how the French proposals for dealing with oil pollution at sea differ from those which his Department currently endorses; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Both the United Kingdom and the French contingency arrangements for dealing with oil spills at sea are based primarily on the use of dispersants sprayed from ships.

Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware that the French have taken action in their Parliament which gives their Government far wider powers than anything proposed by the British Government, even in the Merchant Shipping Bill? Is he further aware that many people would prefer that example to be followed in this country even if, as I understand, the Minister believes that some of the French action may be hard to uphold in the international courts, rather than to have to argue about the pollution which may occur if strong parliamentary action in the form of preventive measures is not taken soon?

Mr. Davis: It is a question always of balancing the need to buttress the authority of IMCO, the United Nations agency which deals with these matters, with our requirements. I feel we shall achieve that as a

result of enacting the Merchant Shipping Bill, and as a result of the action that we are considering with our EEC colleagues. The hon. Member will bear in mind the increase in port state authority that has been conferred by the memorandum of understanding of the North Sea States.

Mr. Emery: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to Le Journal Officiel de la Republique Francaise of 4th August where it is shown that a ministerial committee for the sea has been created, reporting directly to the President, and composed of—so that I may get it correct I shall quote—
 the Minister of the Interior "—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Quotations are not permitted in the course of Questions. Perhaps the hon. Member will quickly memorise it.

Mr. Emery: For the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, I shall refer only to notes, and not quote. The committee is composed of the Minister of the Interior, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Economics, the Minister of the Budget, the Minister of Trade, the Minister of the Environment and Ministers concerned with coastal matters. Would it not make a great deal of sense if the British Government took a leaf from the French book and set up a ministerial committee of this sort? The first action of the French committee was to impose a massive fine on the operators of the"Amoco Cadiz ". Is he aware that that is having a major effect on the way that oil companies operate their tankers?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Member should read more widely. He ought to recognise that the French judicial process is quite different from ours. It involves a different means of imposing fines. There is already a wide measure of coordination between Ministers in this Government. That was exemplified in the degree of co-ordination that existed between myself and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and officials representing a wide variety of other Departments and interests in the"Christos Bitas"incident.

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied


with the extent of the precautions to minimise the pollution that might occur following a major oil spillage in the Channel.

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will make a statement about the Government's proposals to reduce the risk of oil pollution on shore from tankers operating near the coasts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Extensive preparations have been made to deal with oil spills in the Channel, as in the waters around the rest of our coastline. We announced the results of our review of those arrangements on 2nd August, and the appointment of Rear-Admiral Stacey as the first director of our new marine pollution control unit on 20th November. The follow-up work to that review is well advanced. The Government remain determined to develop arrangements that are as effective as possible in mitigating pollution.

Mr. Sainsbury.: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of public concern about the apparent failure of the arrangements that have been undertaken so far? In an earlier answer he referred to concentrating on dispersants. Would it not be advisable to give more attention to the development of means of containing and recovering oil spilled at sea?

Mr. Davis: If the hon. Member catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to develop his arguments in the debate which is to follow. I am aware of continuing public concern. We do our best to allay that concern. The Warren Spring laboratory devotes a considerable amount of its activities to investigating processes for recovery and containment. As yet no absolutely suitable method of recovery has been devised, but progress is being made.

Mr. Molloy: Is the Minister aware that most people are concerned about what action is to be taken to prevent this kind of event from recurring? They also wish to know what sanctions will be incurred by those who could be guilty of negligence, because these disasters damage the coasts and wild life of our nation, and cause a great many people to contribute money to clear much of the filth which has been created around

our coasts. What measures will the Government take to prevent these incidents from arising rather than merely trying to minimise their effects?

Mr. Davis: I suggest that my hon. Friend listens to the speech which is to be made very shortly on this subject by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the two hon. Gentlemen who have a constituency interest in this Question. I call first Mr. Adley.

Mr. Adley: Does the Minister accept that the Warren Spring technology has been heavily based on dispersants, and that there is a need to concentrate more on other measures? Is he satisfied that the effort which Warren Spring is putting into its own technology is the best way of proceeding when it appears to be ignoring other similar technology which has the advantage of being able to be lifted into various places by helicopter, whereas the Warren Spring technology appears to depend entirely on fixed ship activity, which relies on the hope that the ship is in the right place at the right time?

Mr. Davis: I do not regard that as a fair criticism of the activities of Warren Spring. There are severe limitations on the use of helicopters for carrying this kind of heavy equipment. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to pursue these matters further in the debate that is to follow.

Mr. Fell: Is the Minister aware that the most important matter is the prevention of such accidents? Are there enough pilots to go round to make pilotage compulsory on tankers in most of the areas around the British coasts?

Mr. Davis: There is a problem about compulsory pilotage. In order to secure an adequate number of pilots, one would have to diminish the number of people serving on the bridge of our merchant vessels. That would not be a satisfactory arrangement. There are a number of other technical problems. I am not satisfied that deep sea pilotage represents a panacea, as a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, seem to think.

Coastguard Services (Dorset)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what plans he has to run down the coastguard services at Swanage and St. Aldhelm's Head; and for what reasons.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I have no plans to run down these services, but, consistent with the general policy of increasing VHF coverage in preference to the much less effective visual watch, I propose to make greater use of auxiliary coastguard at these two stations.

Mr. King: I thank the Minister for his sensible reply which will counteract local rumour.

Air Services (Bermuda Agreement)

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has received any requests from the United States Government for any amendments to the Bermuda agreement on air services.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The United States has not made any specific requests for amendments to the Bermuda 2 air services agreement. However, during air service talks in Washington earlier this month it was agreed, in accordance with annex 4 of the agreement, to continue negotiations with a view to concluding a more liberal agreement for cargo services. Further talks on this subject have been arranged for mid-December in London.

Mr. Tebbit: Apart from the question of cargo services, has the Minister noticed the considerable criticism which has emanated from United States Government-inspired sources of the Bermuda 2 agreement? Are the Government still completely wedded to their policies of limiting the number of United States"gateway"cities, and of single designation, except for a few specific routes, for British carriers?

Mr. Davis: I am not unaware of American criticisms about Bermuda 2, which goes to show that, by and large, we probably got a pretty good deal. Basically, what the deal has achieved is to give British carriers added opportunities. I am most anxious to maintain this. Nothing is totally immutable. We shall listen to reasonable criticism and try to reach reasonable accords. The basic need

to protect the interests of British carriers is paramount.

Employee Participation

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will ensure that in any proposals which he may make to bring about employee participation in industry all employees are given equal rights.

Mr. John Smith: The Government's proposals are contained in the White Paper Cmnd. 7231, on which consultations are in process.

Sir A. Meyer: Before giving unions the right to nominate people to sit on boards, would it not be advisable to ensure that proper democratic procedures applied within the unions, including the elementary safeguard of a secret ballot for election to office?

Mr. Smith: That is a quite different matter. The experience of the Tory Party in legislating in that general area is not one which would encourage others to do so.

Mr. Madden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many employees of Times Newspapers Limited allege that efforts are being made by the management to secure fundamental changes in working practices under duress? Will the Secretary of State say what consultation there has been between himself and the management of Times Newspapers Limited? Further, will he intervene in this dispute to avoid the suspension of publication as from midnight on Thursday, and so allow proper negotiations to proceed?

Mr. Smith: That supplementary question is a little wide of Cmnd 7231. The Government are watching the position at Times Newspapers closely. We have no plans to intervene.

Motor Vehicle Imports

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what proportion of the British car market was met by imported vehicles during the last month for which figures are available.

Mr. Meacher: Imported vehicles accounted for 51·7 per cent. of the British car market in October 1978, according to figures published by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Mr. Hardy: Will my hon. Friend confirm, or at least consider the proposition, that changes in currency values may not by any means have been adequately reflected in the prices of motor vehicles imported from certain foreign producers? If this is so, is it not the case that this is scarcely compatible with the principle of fair competition?

Mr. Meacher: I think that my hon. Friend is suggesting that there may be dumping by some countries. We have had some representations about this and have examined the evidence. If my hon. Friend has further evidence, I hope that he will produce it.

Mr. Hal Miller: Is the Minister aware of the correlation between increased imports and strikes at Ford? Can he tell us whether the figures for that month were in any way boosted by the Ford strike? Has he formed any estimate of any further increase in imports which will be likely as a result of Government action contemplated against the company, which has been seeking to carry out Government policy?

Mr. Meacher: The higher import figures mainly reflect increased imports by the American multinationals in the United Kingdom, which partly reflect the industrial situation—but not wholly. The level of imports by those companies is high, although I appreciate that, for example, with Ford, a large number of those imported cars have British components. We look to increased British production in future by those companies.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that those figures will cause great concern and alarm throughout the West Midlands and will reflect adversely upon the steel industry and all manufacturers of component parts? In view of my hon. Friend's earlier reply concerning the agreement on imported steels, does he not think that it is high time that we sought an agreement to control the number of cars and heavy vehicles being imported? Further, is it not about time that we received a reply to this question which said more than that there would be retaliation by foreign manufacturers?

Mr. Meacher: About 70 per cent. of our car imports are from the EEC and we are precluded, under the Treaty of Rome,

from taking restrictive action against them.

Mrs. Renée Short: Shame.

Mr. Meacher: As for the remainder, the largest supplier is Japan. Here we have taken action. First there have been no direct imports of heavy commercial vehicles. It is too early to say with certainty, but it is possible that the number of cars and light commercial vehicles entering the country from Japan this year will be below the 1977 level of shipments. To that extent, it seems as though the Government's action in respect of those imports could be successful.

Mr. Higgins: Which of the major United Kingdom car producers is in favour of the so-called voluntary restraint on the export of cars from Japan to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Meacher: There have been full discussions with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders by the Government during all the negotiations that they have held with the Japanese. This is not an inter-governmental agreement: it is an inter-industry understanding, which was clarified by the Government in March this year. It had the full backing of the British manufacturers.

CLERGY (STIPENDS)

Mr. Canavan: 52. Mr. Canavan asked the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker), as representing the Church Commissioners, what is the attitude of the Church Commissioners to a maximum 5 per cent salary increase for the clergy.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Terry Walker): The Church Commissioners would regard a maximum 5 per cent. stipend increase for the clergy in 1979 as altogether inadequate since clergy stipends are currently up to £1,000 per annum—or 30 per cent.—below what, on any reasonable assessment, they ought to be.

Mr. Canavan: Will my hon. Friend tell the Church Commissioners that many of us think that the clergy, especially those on low pay, fully deserve the reported increases of pay of up to 20 per cent.? Is he aware that we believe that the Government as an employer ought to follow the good example of the


Church in this matter by arranging for similar increases for low-paid workers in the public sector, instead of handing out massive 40 per cent. increases for overpaid people such as judges, admirals, Army officers, top officials and chairmen of the nationalised industries?

Mr. Walker: What my hon. Friend must bear in mind is that the increases proposed for the clergy in 1979 will be financed mainly from voluntary giving and cannot give rise to price increases.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Member aware that the clergy should not be treated as a salaried bureaucracy? Does he agree that all of this paraphernalia about the 5 per cent. is quite unsuited, and damaging, to the parson's freehold?

Mr. Walker: The recommended national minimum stipend in 1979 for clergymen of incumbent status is £3,300. The dioceses have been urged, if it is at all possible, to establish a minimum of between £3,500 and £3,800.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that some recent rent increases of 120 per cent. are in no way voluntary? Will he venture a view about whether those increases are more in conflict with the Government's 5 per cent. policy or the principles of Christian teaching? Would he care to suggest what sanctions might effectively be taken against the Church Commissioners, by the Government or the Almighty, to curb their avarice?

Mr. Walker: I can only reiterate that the whole of the increases will be financed by voluntary giving, and that they cannot give rise to inflation.

" THE TIMES"NEWSPAPER

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) during Question Time sent me a note saying that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss the situation relating to The Times newspaper. I am afraid that I cannot allow him to move such a motion because the facts were known well before 12 noon. The hon. Gentleman raised the matter in his supplementary question, but if I were to allow him to do so now, it would be stretching the rules in such

a way that they would no longer have significance.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (EEC DOCUMENTS)

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that on Thursday my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council announced the business for this week and said that the subject of oil pollution was to be debated today. However, we see listed on today's Order Paper, for the first time, two EEC documents—R/1004/78 and R/ 1315/78. I understand that in taking this action the Lord President intends to discharge the obligation to the House laid upon him by the Scrutiny Committee to debate the matter.
It may be that since document R/1004 deals with marine pollution arising from the carriage of oil from the"Amoco Cadiz"and the action taken by the Community, and as document R/1315 deals with matters which may have been ratified already by Her Majesty's Government, this is a reasonable thing to do. But I hope that it will be possible for the Lord President, on a point of order, to explain why this business was not announced last Thursday, whether he intends to pursue this practice and whether he will give an undertaking about future changes of business at short notice.

Mr. Speaker: The Lord President?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I were always to answer points of order of this nature, I am sure that you would be the first to call me to order—and if you did not do so I might well call myself to order. It is true that the proposals for the business for today were put down at a late stage last week and were decided at a late stage then. That was why reference to these documents was not made in last Thursday's Business Statement. I assure the House that there is no intention of introducing any innovation on that account.
Moreover, the Scrutiny Committee's recommendation on these matters was that they should be further considered by the House in the course of a future debate


on marine pollution arising from the carriage of oil at sea. That was why the matter arose in this case. The Scrutiny Committee went on to say that in its view such consideration need not delay adoption by the Council. Therefore, it would not make any difference to the rights of the House as suggested by the Scrutiny Committee. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that explanation, but I have taken account of his remarks. We seek to abide by the general understandings about the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee and the way in which they should be dealt with by the House.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL MEETING (FISHERIES)

Mr. Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on an important matter.
Last Thursday and Friday an important meeting was held in Brussels on the subject of EEC fisheries policy. This was a major meeting, and reports in the press on Friday and Saturday said that there were major disagreements at the meeting. Therefore, I was approached by many constituents at the weekend asking me to discover from the Government what had happened and what the Government proposed to do about it. I confidently expected the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement today so that he could be questioned on the matter. Will you tell the House whether the right hon. Gentleman made an application to you or whether he intends to make a statement tomorrow? Ministers are constantly flouting their responsibility to the House and are in contempt in not reporting these meetings back to the House. I seek your support and guidance in this matter.

Mr. Corbett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not discourteous to hon. Members in this matter of fisheries policy, a subject which concerns hon. Members of both sides of the House, that the Minister has not come to the House today to make a statement on the failure of these negotiations? Is not the urgency of the matter underlined by the fact that a summit meeting is about to take place at which this subject may be discussed? Since we are unable to question the Minis-

ter, is there anything that you can do to assist the House so that, if there is a statement, we can at least ask the Minister questions?

Mr. Speaker: I have never yet told a Minister that he cannot make a statement to the House. I think that a Minister would be very surprised if I were to attempt to do so.

Mr. James Johnson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is now present, would he care to make some comment on this matter? Is he aware—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman at least try to make his comment sound something like a point of order? That would be very helpful for my self-respect.

Mr. Johnson: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that the Minister of Agriculture met the all-party fisheries committee last week and left us in no doubt that he was going to Brussels to fight for the fishing industry? Are you also aware, Sir, that we are all in despair because we have not had any statement on this matter today? Even worse, we are doubly disappointed that the Germans have dragged their domestic policy into this issue. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has seen the newspaper reports on this subject, I beg him to do something to remedy the situation.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May one convey to the Leader of the House, through you, Sir, that the desire to have such a statement comes from all Members of the House, whatever their views on the European Community may be?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, which, I submit, is not a point of order, though none the less—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I had intended to tell the Lord President earlier that I would take account of what he said, but he would be better advised not openly to indicate his feelings on the matter.

Mr. Foot: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly take account of


what has been said on the subject in all parts of the House. Perhaps I could add —I hope that I am still in order, if that is the proper way to describe it—that I am sure that no one on either side of the House would say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was ever backward in taking account of the opinions of the House. I hope that that is taken into account by the House as well. I shall certainly take account of what has been said on this subject in all parts of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Before we leave this matter, I may say that there are times when, in the interests of the House—or, at least, when I think that it is in the interests of the House—my interpretation of what is a point of order is a little more elastic. That is all that has happened today.

SECOND CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSIONER

Mr. Arthur Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving you or my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) notice of this matter, but it arose only at 3.25 this afternoon. You will have noted that when answering for the Church Commissioners at Question Time today my hon. Friend sat in an unaccustomed place on these Benches. The significance of that lies not in where he sits, but I believe that there is a convention that a member of the Government is not usually appointed by the House to act as the person responsible in the House for Questions concerning the business of the Church Commissioners.
I would not normally have sought to question this, but you, Mr. Speaker, and

the House will be aware that in recent times certain actions and declarations by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have suggested that the role of Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Minister is rather different from that which many of us had supposed. If my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, by virtue of being a PPS, is now a member of the Government—[HON. MEMBERS:"No."]—it not inappropriate that he should continue to answer Questions for the Church Commissioners? I put that to you, Mr. Speaker, because you will know that I had considerable correspondence with yourself and with my right hon. Friend the Lord President and others seeking to establish that the Government are not responsible for the Church Commissioners and that this is entirely the responsibility of a Back-Bench Member.
I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would look into this matter and advise the House.

Mr. Speaker: In theory, any hon. Member is allowed to sit where he likes in the Chamber, but there are customs which dictate where we sit. There was nothing at all by way of breach of order in the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) answering on behalf of the Church Commissioners where he did. Bearing in mind that there is High Church and Low Church, I think that he has come a little lower.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock, though opposed, for a period equal to that spent on the Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

OIL SPILLAGE

[Commission documents: R/1004/78, R1315/78.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

3.44 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I think that I should carry the House with me were I to say that the awareness of the problems resulting from oil spillage has grown rapidly in recent years—an awareness regrettably fuelled by experiences around our shores. As members of an island community, most of us find our way to our shores in the course of a year, and the too frequent presence of oil is a factor that we could well do without.
In recent weeks we have experienced in Wales two simultaneous examples of serious oil spillage. When the"Christos Bitas"ran on to the Hats and Barrels rocks, about 14 miles off the Dyfed coast, there were the makings of a major catastrophe.
Fortunately the worst did not occur. The skill and effort of a large number of people, swiftly applied, were successful in keeping the ship afloat while 32,000 tons of oil were pumped out of her. The quantity of oil that reached the shore was limited to amounts that could be dealt with without too much difficulty by the resources available to the local authorities. Even so, there was a tragic loss of bird life and seals. I pay tribute to all those who contributed to the success of this operation. They were, I think, greatly encouraged by the support which they received from many people in the area and did what they could by deed and word in support. To all who were involved in the efforts that were put in I express my thanks—to officers of the Department of Trade, local authorities, a whole host of organisations, and the local Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), to whom I wish in particular to express thanks for his support.
At the same time, Gwynedd was experiencing a separate incident of pollution, resulting from a spillage of oil at the Anglesey marine terminal. These events, of course, were preceded by the major incidents of the"Amoco Cadiz "

and the"Eleni V ", which form, as it were, a backcloth to this debate.
These tragedies give us vivid warning of the environmental disasters that can occur and which have to be guarded against. The first need is to see, by tightening up on preventive measures at national and international level, that they do not occur. I shall deal with that in a moment. If they do occur, and if oil comes ashore in large quantities it has to be dealt with.
We were particularly concerned in Dyfed with the possible effect on the tourist trade and with the effects on a number of ecologically sensitive sites of importance to sea birds and seals, and on a national park. Some of the most beautiful and popular beaches in Wales. which attract many thousands of visitors who contribute much to the local economy, were under threat. Happily, I can give a firm assurance that the beaches are as attractive as ever.
It is not, however, only the tourist industry which suffers. All industry which depends on a wholesome sea and shore is at risk. The problem cannot always, moreover, be confined to the coast. Cleaning up pollution on the beaches means that oil and oily waste which cannot be dealt with on the spot have to be taken to places where they can be dumped either until nature completes the disposal process or until they can be treated and, in the case of beach material, returned to the beaches. It is essential that these places should not themselves become sources of pollution and, in particular, should not affect the wholesomeness of local water supplies.
Some of us represent communities too well aware of the price of coal. Oil, I fear, has its price, too. While it is undoubtedly one of the very foundations of our way of life, we must strive to contain its harmful and unpleasant effects. We have heard over the weekend of the sad fatalities in the diving bell in the North Sea, and I am sure the whole House will join me in conveying heartfelt sympathy to the bereaved.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Morris: Public attention focuses on oil that is discharged into the sea from ships, but I should begin by reminding the House that this is not the only,


or even the major, source from which oil enters the oceans of the world. Perhaps the most reliable estimates in this field are those prepared by the American Academy of Sciences in 1973. These suggest that shipping then accounted for perhaps one-third of the total input of petroleum hydrocarbons.
I now turn to the second broad category of discharges of oil into the sea. These are the accidental discharges, and they represent but a part, and the smaller part, of the totality of oil that is discharged. Our primary concern must be, and is, to prevent accidents happening in the first place. The action that the Government have taken to this end would in itself provide subject matter for a lengthy speech, so I shall confine my remarks as briefly as I can.
No country has devoted more time and effort than has Britain over the years, both nationally and internationally, to measures to protect the safety and well-being of ships and those who go to sea. For many years British merchant shipping legislation served as the model for much of the world and Britain convened the international diplomatic conferences.
The Intergovermental Martime Consultative Organisation, the only specialised agency of the United Nations in London, is now the primary international forum on maritime matters, and it is no accident that it is based here. We can take pride in our record over the years and in our standing in the international community, and the Government are resolved that this long and honourable tradition will be maintained, and if possible, enhanced, in the future.
However, I ask the House to face some harsh realities, as the Government have done.
First, it is a self-evident proposition that men and machines are fallible. That means that despite our best endeavours, those of the international community, of responsible shipping companies, and of very many masters, officers and crew—for let us not forget that there is a large measure of common purpose in the pursuit of safety—laden tankers will continue to be involved in accidents and oil will continue to be spilled.

Mr. Robert Adley: Does the right hon. and

learned Gentleman intend to deal with the issue that his ministerial colleague did not deal with, namely, the steps that the French have taken? Will he be telling us what the French have done and why the British Government are unwilling to take action in this Parliament when the French have taken action in their Parliament?

Mr. Morris: I am aware of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made and the differences in our approach. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with those matters if he catches the eye of the Chair. My hon. Friend will compare and contrast, I hope, the common purpose of both countries in the prevention of these accidents at the earliest opportunity. I concede that the approaches are somewhat different. However, the purpose is common.
Experience shows that the generality of spills are measured in tens, hundreds or thousands of tons of oil, but from time to time there will be spills to be measured in tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of tons of oil. The House will need no reminding of the stranding of the"Torrey Canyon"in 1967 or the stranding of the"Amoco Cadiz"earlier this year.
The second harsh reality that I ask the House to face is that if there is one of these abnormally large spills near our coasts, in the present state of technology and for the foreseeable future we must expect pollution of our shores. The quantities of oil involved are so great that neither we nor anyone else can make any arrangements that will prevent that happening. As I have already said, that risk is part of the price that we pay for our modern way of life and its dependence on the use of oil, and was an important factor underlying our decision to review the contingency arrangements for beach cleaning following an oil spill.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the United Kingdom's high standard of legislation over a number of years. Does he not agree that in the past 20 years or so successive Governments have failed to acknowledge the tremendous growth of tankerage not only on the high seas but in the estuaries and rivers of this country?


Does he accept that the Government—especially the Department of Trade—have never tried to appreciate, from information given by the international oil companies, the tremendous range of oil products that are now carried? Will he say precisely what measures he intends to introduce to try to prevent accidents, whether at sea or in estuaries?

Mr. Morris: If I had been allowed to proceed with my speech I should have dealt with some of the matters that the hon. Gentleman raised. It would be an extremely lengthy speech if I were to go through the whole range of Government activity, even over the past 20 years. I do not accept that the Department of Trade has not been fully cognisant of the major problem along our shores. I am saying that with the present state of knowledge we can deal with a whole range of spillages, but that from time to time there are abnormally large spillages, which, in the ordinary course of events, we are not able to deal with given the present state of technology, or are able to deal with only, perhaps, with an enormous range of resources. That is the proposition that I was seeking to put to the House.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, by the same token as these extraordinary spillages will cause pollution on our shores—which is excusable because of the volume of the spillage—the small spillages, such as the 100-ton spillage that occurred from the offshore oil terminal at Amlwch and affected a significant part of my constituency, are far less excusable, because there is every opportunity for the Government and all the authorities involved to ensure that such terminals are absolutely foolproof and safe?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to make a speech on that very issue if he catches the eye of the Chair. I look forward to listening to it. I do not regard any of the spillages as excusable. I was putting to the House the fact that with the present state of knowledge and the available resources it is not possible to deal with all spillages. I was referring to the larger spillages, as was the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane).
I hope that I shall be allowed to get on with what I want to say. I have a great deal of ground to cover and I know that many hon. Members will want to catch the eye of the Chair to express their constituency interests, as I am sure will the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts).
I turn to contingency measures. The fact that we cannot prevent extensive coastal pollution following an abnormally large spill does not mean that we should give up hope of dealing effectively with the generality of spills, which are of more modest dimention, or of mitigating the effect of large ones. We do not go away because there is a large spill and we cannot deal with it wholly. On the contrary, the Government are determined to make the arrangements for dealing with such situations as effective as possible.
That is a matter to which we have devoted considerable care and attention over a period. About two years ago we published a report on oil spills and cleanup measures under the title"Accidental Oil Pollution of the Sea ". We announced our decisions in the slimmer of 1977. Immediately after the"Amoco Cadiz"disaster, we set in hand a further careful review of our contingency measures, which we published at the beginning of August. At the same time, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade informed the House of the Government's conclusions and decisions.
The present broad allocation of responsibilities has been confirmed on each occasion. That is based on the fact that oil spills occur relatively infrequently along any particular stretch of coastline and that it therefore makes good sense to make full use of organisations and expertise that exist for other purposes. Accordingly, the Department of Trade is responsible for cleaning oil inshore and offshore.
The Department of Trade's marine survey organisation located in our major ports is staffed to a large extent by former merchant navy officers well experienced in seagoing operations. Her Majesty's coastguard is also readily available with a communications network. The Department's plans and practical measures to fight pollution at sea are based largely on the use of dispersants of only a very small fraction of the toxicity of those used at the time of the"Torrey Canyon"disaster.
In each district tugs and other vessels have been identified, which can be fitted with spraying equipment and deployed at short notice. This was done notably quickly in the case of the"Christos Bitas"operation, when 66 vessels in all were deployed, of which 48 were engaged in anti-pollution operations.
Should the district require more resources, it can call for assistance from other districts or from the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland, which can supply patrol vessels, or from the United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association, which has stockpiles of spraying equipment and dispersant at the major ports serving the offshore oil and gas fields. The Ministry of Defence also normally supplies a command ship, from which a marine surveyor will direct spraying operations at sea, as well as helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft for aerial surveillance.
While tactical decisions on oil clearance operations at sea can be made locally, certain decisions, which involve wider or international considerations, have to be made centrally, with the involvement of Ministers. The Department of Trade therefore maintains a marine emergency information room in London, which serves as a focal point for collecting the information used for briefing Ministers and keeping the rest of Whitehall in touch with developments.
The contingency arrangements also have an international dimension. The 1969 Bonn agreement for co-operation in dealing with pollution of the North Sea by oil—which also covers the Channel—provides for the exchange of information between the eight parties, including the United Kingdom, about oil slicks which are likely to affect other member countries. There are, of course, special contingency plans between Britain and France for dealing with any disaster in the Channel.
As I have said, the local authorities are responsible for dealing with oil spills close inshore and onshore. They have substantial resources of men, vehicles and mechanical equipment for their other functions, which can be used for oil clearance, as well as specialised equipment for this purpose.
The Government announced in the review into contingency measures to deal with oil pollution that a separate study is being undertaken, in conjunction with local authorities, of the arrangements for dealing with oil which comes ashore. We have been taking every opportunity of drawing on the experiences gained by the French Government as a result of the massive land pollution problems caused by the terrible"Amoco Cadiz"disaster of March 1978, when, of course, we were engaged with them as allies in the fight at sea, and from the"Eleni V"incident.
We have this year faced undoubtedly major challenges. Oil pollution incidents present complex and difficult problems, and each is also apt to present novel features. For example, getting equipment to the rockbound beaches of Wales is of necessity different from getting it to the flatter sands of East Anglia.
I thought it important, as soon as the"Christos Bitas"incident was over, to gather as much material as possible for this study from those who had been concerned—

Mr. Macfarlane: Why not before?

Mr. Morris: Because—without spelling it out in child's language—I thought that it was right, immediately the"Christos Bitas"incident occurred, and within a matter of weeks, before people forgot exactly what happened, to draw together all the local authorities, the county councils in North Wales and South Wales, the Devon county council and all other organisations, so that we could immediately recount what exactly had happened, what suggestions could be made for improvements and what should be done before people forgot.

Mr. David Price: Since the"Torrey Canyon"incident, the report of the Select Committee, of which the right hon. and learned Member and I were both members, has been available to the Government. We warned the Government in that report that this was inevitably going to happen. There is no party point about this. It is so obvious.

Mr. Morris: I was dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. He asked me why I did not call a conference on the"Christos Bitas"incident before it occurred. It could not be held before. That is a simple


proposition, which is self-evident. But what is important is that there is a difference in each of these disasters, and the arrangements necessary to deal with them have to be different. When one can learn from each of them, certainly I would be the first to agree that one should collate that experience and adapt it for a possible, regrettable and unfortunate future occurrence. However, I repeat that one cannot, in the present state of knowledge, deal with every one of these contingencies if a very large amount of oil conies ashore within a very short period. I should have thought that that, again, was a self-evident proposition, from the state of knowledge that we have.
I should have thought that the House would agree readily that it was a good thing to have a conference of all those who were involved in order to see what could be learned—not months afterwards, and not years, and not dealing with evidence related, perhaps, at second or third hand but hearing immediately from the people concerned of what action was taken and what suggestions could be made by them for an improvement of the situation.

Mr. Peter Emery: Perhaps I may remind the Secretary of State that
 The Government are now considering the lessons, both national and international, to be drawn 
and the
 formulation of proposals to improve conditions will be pressed forward with urgency.
That was written in a White Paper, following the"Torrey Canyon"incident, and it was published in April 1967. Why are we still talking in those terms?

Mr. Morris: I am not in a position to answer for the Government of which I believe the hon. Gentleman was a member—

Mr. Emery: In 1967?

Mr. Morris: —between 1970 and 1974. He was a member of a Government for some of that time. I am sure that my memory serves me right and that he served in that Government, in the Department of Trade and Industry—a very apposite Department, perhaps, with some relevance to the kind of decisions that should have been taken in that time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's memory is very short.
What I am saying is that over the years there has been a development in the techniques and in awareness, and lessons have been learned. I certainly do not want to adopt—I have not done so—a posture of complacency. What I have said is that in accordance with, I believe, a request from the Select Committee that one should, as soon as possible, consider lessons to be learned from these disasters, this was done in public, a Carmarthen and in Dyfed, and a great many lessons —if the House would allow me to get on to the lessons—were put forward by those who were gathered. This was following that very successful handling of the"Christos Bitas"incident.
I hope that the House will accept that proposition, too. This was a very successful event indeed. Great tragedy was averted through the speedy concentration of a whole host of organisations and resources. People may say"No lessons have been learned ", but if the "Christos Bitas"affair had been handled in some other way and had, perhaps, turned out to be a total disaster, if there was oil despoiling our beaches for many months to come, perhaps those who are now critical would be in a better position so to speak. However, I hope that the House will join with me in congratulating all those who took part in the very successful handling of a most difficult operation. I hope that some of the lessons of what had happened in the past had been learned and applied in the course of what occurred following the"Christos Bitas"incident. That should be put on record today. To ignore that is to do a disservice to the hundreds of people who took part in the handling of the"Christos Bitas"incident.

Mr. William Molloy: I agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. It was a magnificent effort. However, millions of people in Britain also believe that there was grave error of judgment and that there was maritime misbehaviour on the part of those who owned the vessel. What they want to know is what sort of compensation this nation will have for the millions of pounds that the affair cost Great Britain.

Mr. Morris: On the first point, the question of fault is obviously being examined. An independent inquiry is


looking into that matter. It is not right for me to comment on that at this stage. Secondly, the procedures for handling compensation are well known. There is a recourse to the international funds made available. In the event, I do not think that any difficulty will arise from that. Both of those matters are covered by well established procedures.
I hope that the House would like to know what suggestions emerged from the conference at Carmarthen. The first very practical consideration was the need to identify in advance sites where oil and oily material recovered from polluted beaches could be safely placed. This proved a difficult problem with the"Christos Bitas"because of the need not to pollute water supplies. There appeared to be a shortage of known suitable sites. It would obviously have been helpful if sites had been earmarked in advance. We are calling a meeting of waste disposal authorities in Wales to look at this problem, and similar arrangements are contemplated in England. The problem has also emerged as an important one in Scotland, to which the local authorities in Scotland are giving attention.
The second point was a suggestion that someone should be appointed by the Government as a co-ordinator, possibly having powers of direction, to oversee the measures taken to deal with pollution; to secure an immediate response by Government Departments and other public bodies; to decide on priorities after consultation with all the interests concerned and to give decisions where there is a conflict of views. I think that there is a strong case for such an appointment or appointments, and I nominated an officer of my Department who could have filled such a role with the"Christos Bitas"had the need arisen. The question of powers does, however, need careful examination, and this will take place in the review to which I have referred.
A third point related to the treatment of oil which comes ashore. This is a matter which is receiving a good deal of attention. We are redoubling our efforts with regard to research into new ways and means of protecting our coastline against the menace of oil pollution. The research laboratory at Warren Spring has an international reputation in this area. In collaboration with the Warren Spring laboratory and the Uni-

versity of Wales, I am hoping to promote in Wales an experiment in the bacteriological decomposition of oil. If succesful, this will be a useful supplement to other measures to deal with pollution which comes ashore.

Mr. Hamish Watt: Does the Secretary of State agree that the best people to deal with the waste oil wherever collected, be it from the beaches or from the sea itself, should be the oil companies? Surely it should be their responsibility to tidy up the mess that they make. They should be made to pay for all the experiments which are presently being carried out.

Mr. Speaker: Before the Secretary of State answers, I respectfully suggest that there have been a large number of interventions. I know that several hon. Members hope to speak this side of 7 o'clock, not after the next debate. Too many interventions not only spoil the flow of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech but lengthen it.

Mr. Morris: I shall be as brief as I can, Mr. Speaker. I dealt with the question of cost when I answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). As to the disposal of oil and oil pollution, it is certainly not for the oil companies to decide where the oil or the oil pollution should be put. This is very much a matter in which the local authorities and water authority would want to take a strong part. It was at their request that the question arose time after time about the collation of powers, and that someone should take the responsibility for deciding these matters where there was a conflict of views. As I have said, at first sight the proposition has attractions, but the question of powers would obviously lead into great difficulties and needs to be considered.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Will the Secretary of State ask the Minister who will be winding up the debate to find out precisely what the situation is with regard to the repayment of expenses incurred by the local authorities at East Anglia since that time? I am not sure how much has been paid or whether anything has yet been paid.

Mr. Morris: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a great deal of


interest in this problem and I am sure that my hon. Friend will deal with this point. In principle, there is no difficulty, although I do not know what the practice is with regard to actual payments.
Finally, at that conference there was an acknowledgment of the need for local resources to be supplemented by specialised equipment made available by the Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is building up the central Government stockpile of specialised equipment to be made available to local authorities faced with large-scale pollution problems. This will have a most important part to play.
Although successive reviews have confirmed the present broad allocation of responsibilities, the Government have by no means closed their mind to the possibility of change where this seems likely to result in more effective arrangements. One such change recently announced is the setting up of a new marine pollution control unit in the Department of Trade.
While the arrangements which the Department have operated so far have been generally effective, they have imposed a very considerable strain on staff who have other heavy responsibilities for marine safety. Also, the experience gained by marine survey staff in one part of the country is not readily available to guide the operations which may be necessary elsewhere on another occasion. For these reasons, a new organisation is needed which is able to devote its full time to the task and to get the continuity of experience which is necessary whenever pollution occurs elsewhere. As was announced last Monday, Rear-Admiral Stacey has been appointed as the first director of the unit. Its main tasks were announced at that time, and I shall not take up the time of the House by going over them now.
There is also the possibility of new techniques for dealing with oil spills. As our latest review made clear, we have been investigating the possibility of using aircraft to spray dispersant and have used this technique with light aircraft in recent operations. This could add a flexible and mobile weapon to our armoury.
At this point, perhaps I might refer to the European Communities and to the two instruments which the Scrutiny Com-

mittee recommended should be further considered by the House in the context of a future debate, such as this, on marine pollution arising from the carriage of oil at sea. I also recall that the Scrutiny Committee recommended that this further consideration need not delay the adoption of those instruments by the Council of Ministers.
The Council of Transport Ministers met at the end of last week. It was attended by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who will be winding up the debate. Since the Scrutiny Committee considered the two documents that are now before us there have been a number of developments and, therefore, I can give the House an up-to-date account of where we stand. The House will recall that before last week the Community had reached agreement on two topics. The first was a recommendation that member States should ratify three IMCO and one International Labour Organisation conventions by agreed dates. The second was that the Commission should undertake an action programme of preliminary studies to identify any gaps which need to be filled in the present arrangements to deal with oil pollution. In due course, the Commission will doubtless put forward proposals for action based on these studies.
Last week the Transport Council reached agreement on a recommendation that member States should ratify the recently concluded IMCO convention on standards of training certification and watchkeeping for seafarers by the end of 1980. We intend to conform to this timetable, and my hon. Friend will sign the convention subject to ratification on 1st December—the first day it is open to signature.
The Council also reached agreement on a directive by which member States are to take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that there are sufficient adequately qualified deep sea pilots for the use of vessels in the North Sea and English Channel, and member States have to encourage vessels flying their own flag that, if they use a pilot, they use only an adequately qualified pilot.
The Council further reached agreement on a directive setting minimum requirements for certain tankers entering or leaving community ports.
Finally, the Council welcomed the intention of Italy and the Republic of Ireland to apply to join The Hague memorandum of understanding, and noted that member States intend to give their full and whole hearted support to the memorandum.
These are generally constructive measures. Bringing conventions into force, promoting high standards of pilotage and effective enforcement of agreed standards are important steps towards improvements in safety and we welcome a Community contribution to that end.
In my opening remarks I referred to the Christos Bitas ". I would also like to refer to the earlier incident which affected our stores this year—the collision between the"Eleni V"and the"Roseline"off the coast of East Anglia, and the resulting pollution. Here we have the benefit of a report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology. As the House will be aware, we expect to reply fully to that report, in the customary manner, before Christmas. That remains our intention. Even so, it may be for the convenience of the House if I comment on some aspects of the report at this stage.
First, the Government emphatically reject the suggestion, in paragraph 21 of the report, that the present arrangements for dealing with oil spills at sea
 leave the south coast virtually unprotected ".
These arrangements are geared to providing a capability in each of the Department of Trade's south-eastern and south-western marine survey districts to treat about 3,000 tons of oil a day at sea—that is a total of 6,000 tons a day, not 6,000 tons for any one incident as stated in the Committee's report.
In each case this would involve mustering about 20 spraying vessels. At present it would take 48 hours or so to build up to that number, but experience shows that the greater part of the oil in large spills generally remains at sea for some days. Moreover, the resources available on the South Coast can, if desirable, be augmented over a period from other parts of the country, and from France and North Sea countries under the Bonn agreement for co-operation in dealing with pollution of the North Sea by oil 1969.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I am interested in what my right

hon. and learned Friend has just said, but as Chairman of the Select Committee I must point out that our report was based on the evidence given to us, which did not bear out what he said.

Mr. Morris: As I understand it, this is the evidence given on behalf of the Department of Trade to the Committee. I have read the report from the Committee. In the fullness of time a considered answer to the proposition put forward by it will be given by the Government. On this issue certainly there is a disagreement between the Government and the Committee. On that basis I am sure that there will be further consideration. Therefore, I rebut the suggestion of total lack of protection. There may be an argument about the degree of protection, but certainly the position is not as the Select Committee says in its evidence.
We agree that there is a limit to the number of vessels that can be safely and effectively deployed in a confined area and that the weather, the location of the spill, visibility, the rate of emulsification and other factors mean that a capability to treat oil is not necessarily equivalent to preventing all of it from coming ashore. But the current level of capability on the south coast is certainly substantial when compared with the size of the generality of spills, which were given in evidence to the Select Committee.
We do, however, agree with the Select Committee that the anti-pollution aspect of the"Eleni V"operation has emphasised the problems posed by heavy fuel oils. The primary emphasis of our research and development programme on methods of combating oil pollution at sea has certainly been directed towards dealing with crude oils which account for the great bulk of the oil which passes the United Kingdom coastline. However, the particular characteristics of, and problems posed by, heavy crude and heavy fuel oils have certainly not been ignored in that programme, in published material or in training courses.
Warren Spring laboratory has reappraised its research and development programme in the light of recent incidents. Its recovery system for oils which can be pumped is in an advance stage of development, but heavy fuel oils cannot be pumped at sea temperatures and consequently present special difficulties, which


the laboratory is studying further, together with improved methods of using dispersants.
In the meantime, if a restricted spraying operation on a heavy oil appears in future to be relatively ineffective, it may be necessary to concentrate on cleaning up any oil which comes ashore by mechanical means.
There is a good deal more that could be said about the Select Committee's report, and will be said when we present our formal reply. At this stage, I will add that there were a number of adverse factors which were bound to cause difficulty, and which were not perhaps fully appreciated by those who have the benefit of hindsight.
Most of the oil was released at the time of the collision only about six miles from the coast, and the winds and tides carried much of it ashore within 48 hours. No country has yet demonstrated any means of dealing at sea with the type of heavy fuel oil carried by the"Eleni V ". The salvage operation was extremely difficult and complex in character. At every stage, the objective underlying the measures taken—which were supported by a wide range of informed opinion—was to minimise the risk of further pollution.

Mr. J. Grimond: I represent a constituency in which the largest oil terminal in Europe is just receiving oil. It is in extremely enclosed water. The Secretary of State has spoken about disasters at sea. If there were a disaster on the approaches to Sullom Voe it would be nothing like six miles from the coast. Will the Secretary of State say something about the Government's proposals for dealing with collisions or wrecks in very enclosed waters, which are very practical matters in the approach to Sullom Voe? Who will be responsible? Where will the central depot of equipment be? How long will it take for the equipment or detergent to get there?

Mr. Morris: I shall leave to my hon. Friend the question of the location of the depot or depots. The intention is to have more than one depot—perhaps three. We may need sub-depots as equipment becomes available. Certainly it is the intention to have these depots in more

than one place. Because these incidents occur in a wide range of places it is not prudent or possible to have depots dotted along innumerable spots on the coast. We hope to have them at strategic points, so that they can be readily available within the shortest possible time. It is unusual for the oil immediately to come ashore. There is usually the time to deploy the resources available to whatever part of the country they are needed. I shall leave the other point about restricted space to my hon. Friend as well.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Earlier, the Secretary of State said that the Government's full reaction to the Select Committee report would come"in the fullness of time". He has made a preliminary attempt to answer some of the Committee's remarks today. There is a Written Answer to myself saying that the Government's reply will be forthcoming before Christmas. I hope that he regards"the fullness of time"as not in any way varying that pledge.

Mr. Morris: That is our intention. I wrote to my hon. Friend the chairman of the Committee at the weekend indicating the time scale. That remains the order of things.

Mr. Palmer: I have written to the hon. Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett).

Mr. Morris: I understand that my hon. Friend has written to the hon. Gentleman on that basis. As this debate is being held today I thought it right to deal with the one point on which we differ substantially from the Committee, and the other on which we accepted part of the proposition on the need to deal with heavy oil. These were matters that it was right to bring before the House in this debate. There are a whole host of other points which it would be right and proper to deal with at some length in reply to the Committee, in accordance with tradition.
I have been generous in giving way to a host of interventions, which have taken up a great deal of time, for which I apologise. We should not underestimate the anxiety that is felt when various parts of the country have an oil spillage tragedy on their doorsteps. That was how I felt about the"Christos Bitas"and I am sure that the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) felt the same way when his constituency was affected.
I hope that hon. Members will keep the sense of proportion that the House would wish to see shown in the debate. More than 1 million tons of oil is moved by ships every day through the Channel alone, yet since 1970 the biggest oil spills for which the Department of Trade's antipollution plans have had to be activated were 6,300 tons from the"Pacific Glory ", 2,100 tons from the"Olympic Alliance"and, this year, about 5,000 tons from the"Eleni V"and about 2,400 tons from the "Christos Bitas ". The remainder were much smaller, and few in number. I exclude the"Amoco Cadiz"case in which the Department mounted a successful operation to save the Channel Islands from the pollution which might have seemed inevitable.
None of the incidents this year has involved loss of human life, even though a great deal of the work had to be done at personal peril to the people involved in the operation and it would not be right for me to finish my speech without paying tribute to everyone who took part.
We are not complacent. We realise that the amount of tanker traffic around our coasts means that there is always a risk of accidents, but I sincerely hope that the House will not over-react to the point of advocating costly and disproportionate measures that would be unused for almost all the time and would, in any case, be inadequate to deal with the exceptional disaster.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. John Nott: On 18th March 1967—nearly 12 years ago—the"Torrey Canyon"went aground on the Seven Stones in my constituency and I found myself, having just been elected to the House, having to face all the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has had to face in the much smaller but equally distressing case of the"Eleni V ".
It is to the experience of my hon. Friend and the knowledge of members of the Select Committee that I defer in the debate. It would be inappropriate for me, before hearing their remarks, to embark on a detailed post mortem of an event which I did not experience. I shall refer to it with a little more knowledge than the Secretary of State has because I have studied the report of the Select Committee with considerable care. How-

ever, I shall leave my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) to answer points made by members of the Select Committee when he winds up for the Opposition. I want to concentrate mainly on the question of prevention.
In opening the debate from this side of the House, I want to make two preliminary remarks. First, although I do not want to be over-critical, I must say that it is less than satisfactory that the new Secretary of State for Trade will not be speaking. The right hon. Gentleman has probably just slipped out for a moment, so he is not even here for this part of the debate. As a matter of principle, when a Select Committee severely criticises a Department—whether the criticisms are valid or not—it is right that the head of the Department should answer for it, even if he is new and bears no personal blame.
There are considerable international and national legal matters to discuss. Many of the remarks of the Secretary of State for Wales were concerned with the"Christos Bitas"affair, which is relevant, but is not specifically part of the motion.

Mr. John Morris: We are not discussing the report of the Select Committee. That might be a matter on which the hon. Gentleman could properly criticise us, but the motion before us is for the Adjournment. We are discussing oil spillage, which has wide environmental considerations.

Mr. Nott: But the Secretary of State knows that the House was informed that this was a debate on oil spillage in which the Select Committee's report on the"Eleni V" was relevant. Since the report is relevant, the Secretary of State for Trade should have spoken in the debate.
Since the House is discussing oil spillage today, why do we have to wait until Christmas for the Government's response on the Select Committee's report? I am aware, of course, that there is normally a delay between publication of a Select Committee report and the Government's reply, but as we have a debate on the matter today one might have expected the Government to give their full reply at this juncture.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis) rose—

Mr. Nott: The hon. Gentleman will speak later. He can answer then.
However difficult these issues—and I think that they are extremely difficult—none of us should underrate the widespread and growing concern of the British public. That concern goes far beyond the interests of fishing, tourism and business generally in coastal constituencies. Conservationists, with their expression of profound disquiet about the dangers of our modern industrial society, only reflect a rather less strident concern among millions of ordinary people about the social and ecological consequences of where twentieth century society is going.
When I read the Select Committee's report, I was struck by the similarity of many of the criticisms and of the defences put up by the Government with the position that I remember from the"Torrey Canyon"and our debate on 10th April 1967. Of course, every spill and every accident is unique, but the same concern has been expressed in the case of the"Eleni V"about the lack of contingency arrangements, about the failure to anticipate events and about delay and indecisiveness as was expressed over the"Torrey Canyon"nearly 12 years ago.
After weeks of indecision in the"Torrey Canyon"case, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), flew to my constituency, set up a sort of operations room on the cliffs at Land's End and personally directed the destruction of the vessel by the RAF. In West Cornwall we still think of that incident as being perhaps the most tenacious and decisive act of the right hon. Gentleman's career.
The point is that Prime Ministers and Ministers come and go, but their advisers in the Civil Service go on for ever."Immortal and invisible ", in the words of the hymn, they are honest and decent people who are full of intelligence, but on the whole they are, by disposition and training and because of their accountability to the House, not always the appropriate people to take risks in an emergency. The natural reaction of Ministers' advisers in a crisis is to assemble a committee, which invariably decides to call an interdepartmental committee to advise a sub-committee of the Cabinet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) calls in his interesting early-day motion, for which he will argue with his usual skill, for a change in interdepartmental responsibility. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will note his recommendation. But I wonder whether it is wise to divide prevention from cure. My hon. Friend will explain why he thinks that that would be advisable and say whether he thinks that much will change if the chairmanship of an inter-departmental committee—in the end that is what it will be, in view of the vast list of Departments involved—switches from the Department of Trade to the Department of the Environment. I have doubts.
Subject to my hon. Friend's arguments and the feelings of the 132 supporters of his motion, I should like to pursue a rather different course, although I think it brings me to the same objective.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Department of the Environment is the Department with major responsibilities for pollution and environmental matters over a wide range of areas, and that therefore it would make a great deal of sense to bring this aspect of pollution control under the same general supervision?

Mr. Nott: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but if one reads the Select Committee's report on the"Eleni V ", the"Christos Bitas"report, published this morning, and the reports of all the other inquiries into the matter, the departmental studies, one sees that in the end the meetings that take place in a crisis are meetings among many Departments. Suddenly to create an artificial subdivision at one mile from the shore may not necessarily change anything very much.
However, I want to make a point that is very much along my hon. Friend's lines. The letter from the Rotary Club of Lowestoft, to be found on page 113 of the Select Committee's report, struck a chord with me. In that letter the club, which may be a peculiar source but is nevertheless an interesting one, says in a simple way—

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. John Smith): What is peculiar about it?

Mr. Nott: I am saying that I think that it was a peculiarly good, simple letter. If the right hon. Gentleman, who has not spoken in the debate, will listen to what I have to say, he will understand the point that I am making.

Mr. John Smith: I understand that the hon. Gentleman criticised my absence from the Chamber during the debate for all of three minutes. He said that the letter was from a peculiar source. I merely questioned what was peculiar about that Rotary Club.

Mr. Nott: I criticised the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade, whose departmental responsibilities these matters are, was not speaking in the debate. That is the criticism that the right hon. Gentleman should answer. I also remarked that the right hon. Gentleman was absent for a few minutes.
The Rotary Club of Lowestoft said in its letter that although there was of course ultimate ministerial responsibility in these matters, there was no single executive power of a trouble-shooting kind. There was no single full-time paid person who could swing into action in an emergency and command the full resources of the nation. It is in that light that I very much welcome the appointment of Rear-Admiral Stacey to his post, together with his technical adviser, Captain Ralph May-bourn, from British Petroleum. But is it right to put the admiral within the departmental structure of the Department of Trade? Where a critical emergency arises, the chain of command should be from a person with executive responsibility direct to senior Ministers, with civil servants in attendance, as it were. Here we need much more someone with executive authority working direct to Ministers. Civil servants should be acting in an advisory, not an executive, capacity in this kind of case.
I want to enlarge on that, because I am aware of the tremendous experience in the marine division of the Department of Trade and of all the experience in other Departments. It is in executive action that so often we have gone wrong.
The Select Committee's report is a very useful document. Hon. Members who served on the Committee are to be applauded for it. But if I were looking for a specific criticism—I want to leave aside entirely for the moment the general question of how

far it is possible to hold sufficient resources of men, materials and money available to meet a major catastrophe—it would be that nowhere can I find any mention of the role that might have been played by the oil industry itself.
Of course, in the"Eleni V"case Chevron and the owners' agents and the P. and I. Club played an undistinguished role. As far as one can make out, they were anxious to sit back and let others tackle the crisis. But in the"Christos Bitas"case, which I think was well handled on the whole, BP played a most successful role.
The oil industry possesses vast knowledge of spillage clearance techniques. It has mechanical recovery equipment and large dispersant stocks and unparalleled knowledge of the properties of oil and its behaviour. I am told that a simple test of viscosity on the spot by an oil industry expert might well have shown immediately that the normal dispersants were not entirely suitable for the particular kind of oil that was spilled in the"Eleni V"case. In fact, it took three whole days to obtain that message from the Warren Spring laboratory.
Therefore, I am left with the impression that in this case the Government were too anxious to go it alone. I trust that Admiral Stacey will draw in the oil and shipping industries' expertise more than in the past, as well as consulting and working very closely with the marine division of the Department of Trade and with the Defence Department.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman is slightly criticising the Select Committee, as he is entitled to do, for not looking further into the role of oil companies. The problem of all Select Committee investigations is that if one is to take evidence from absolutely everybody one will never finish. We felt that it was very important to get the report out quickly.

Mr. Nott: That is a fair reply. I was simply making the point that in the"Christos Bitas"case BP played a valuable and important role, whereas in the Select Committee's report the possibility of the oil industry's playing a role is not referred to.
I shall not go into the question of the movement of oil. The Secretary of State


for Wales has mentioned that 1 million tons goes through the Channel daily, and I think that over 21,000 very large crude carriers have passed through those narrow straits in the past 12 years. It is for this reason that every hon. Member representing coastal areas has grave concern.
It may be that in due course—the sooner, the better—we shall find a replacement for fossil fuels, a renewable source of energy that is cleaner and more acceptable. In the meantime, modern industrial society is in a trap and it does not help to rail against the oil companies, which are merely in the end responding to the demand for a basic source of energy.
I want to criticise the oil companies in one or two respects, but if every tanker were well found, well manned and in the best possible condition, human error would still occur in the dangerous medium of the sea, as the Secretary of State for Wales said. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself remarked, the advisory committee on oil pollution of the sea, which has done a much better job than the Department of Trade has done in identifying spillage, points out that only 5 per cent. or so of oil entering the sea does so as a result of accidents. Mention has been made of the cleaning out of tanks at sea, but I understand that the greatest source of oil pollution in the sea is oil washed down our rivers, through, for instance, ordinary people emptying the sump of their motor car down the drain. That oil finds its way into the sea.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman should be serious.

Mr. Nott: That is a statement made by a committee for which the right hon. Gentleman, who is not speaking today, is responsible—the advisory committee on oil pollution of the sea. The Secretary of State for Wales said that that finding was the result of research in America. I had to study the report over the weekend. The right hon. Gentleman might have done so as well, and then he would not make inaccurate remarks from a sedentary position.
Hearing the speech of the Secretary of State for Wales and reading all the material on the subject, no one would

deny that intense activity has taken place in international and national bodies in the past few years. However, it is mirrored by an equal lack of sufficient practical and effective progress. We cannot simply have government by catastrophe. The impression remains that we move forward only after each incident instead of being prepared to meet the next.
The commendable activity of IMCO—and several recent conventions have been of the highest importance and value—is not mirrored by equal vigour in ratification and enforcement by the member States. As IMCO accelerates its work, as it is doing now, the number of non-signatory States to the conventions may well accelerate as well. The 1973 convention on the deliberate discharge of waste was ratified by only three States when it became obsolete and was amended by a protocol in February. So that when Ministers claim, as they do, that because our coasts are polluted by the ships of every nation the problem can be tackled only on an international basis, they must expect there to be growing concern in the country at that statement.
Although the conventions are agreed, ratification is an extremely slow and ineffective process. Despite international agreement and all the valuable work done by IMCO, there are still no enforceable standards of ships, ship equipment and crew training and there are no really enforceable rules in international law concerning substandard ships. We move forward largely by voluntary arrangements around our shores, backed up by tough sanctions against our own flag carriers and such foreign-owned carriers as happen to come within the three-mile limit. Even where it is within our legal jurisdiction the Department of Trade has hardly shown much sense of urgency.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to answer some questions. Why is it, for example, that certificates of competence for the deck watch for our own flag carriers do not come into effect until September 1981? I know that we felt able to sign the North Sea agreement on the basis of what is called"substantial equivalence ", but could not the relevant regulations about competence for the deck watch have been laid in this House before September 1977?
Then the international fund for compensation for oil damage provides a fund


of £19·5 million, which has been contributed by the oil industry. It came into force only on 15th October of this year. But we are entitled under the convention to require a fund of double this amount. Will the Under-Secretary of State say why the doubling of this figure, which is allowable under the international convention, is not yet in force and why it has not proceeded in parallel with the date of 15th October for the £19·5 million which is already agreed?

Mr. Clinton Davis: It is not for want of trying on our part. We tried only last week to get a doubling of this. We were supported by the French, but other nations were not prepared to come into line.

Mr. Nott: I am happy to have that answer, and it leads me on to what I want to say about international action.
When we debate the Merchant Shipping Bill on Thursday, we shall want to look at the international convention of 1969 which sets a limit of £9 million per ship on compensation for a single disaster. I expect that the Under-Secretary of State will say that the Government have tried unsuccessfully to raise that figure too. Will he also say whether the Department of Trade is resisting—and, if so, why—the proposed EEC directive on tanker reporting, initiated by Germany and supported by France and the Netherlands?

Mr. Clinton Davis: Mr. Clinton Davis indicated dissent.

Mr. Nott: I see the Under-Secretary of State shaking his head. That is good news because, as he knows, there is now a trial arrangement going on between the French and the British for tanker reporting in the Channel, and I was puzzled when I read in press cuttings that the Government were unhappy about the EEC directive on tanker reporting.
Can the Minister increase penalties for the infringement of traffic separation schemes? Why are the penalties so low for the infringement of existing schemes which come under our authority? Is his Department following the very interesting correspondence in the Nautical Review mainly consisting of comments from tanker masters who are using these routes?

Mr. Molloy: And misusing them.

Mr. Nott: Some of them may be misusing them, but I think that the great majority of them are not doing so. The Nautical Review of September 1978 says that great concern about the Casquets crossing area and the confusing three-lane scheme off Ushant has been expressed, and it goes on to say that drilling rigs are now coming into this area and that IMCO has adopted a scheme which on the face of it mariners do not like.
I am not saying that I am a total supporter of the Trinity House proposals. Nevertheless, the Minister has set his face against any change in the IMCO scheme.

Mr. Clinton Davis: No.

Mr. Nott: I had understood that he had. If, then, there is a preparedness to consider a variation of the recent traffic separation scheme—

Mr. Clinton Davis: It was important, following the"Amoco Cadiz ", to reflect upon the French proposals, and we decided to support them. Trinity House has put forward a variation of those proposals. But all that I have said in the House hitherto is that we ought to see how the IMCO proposals work out in practice and, in the light of that, consider what Trinity House has to say as a matter of experience.

Mr. Nott: I shall not pursue that further, because I want to draw my remarks to a close. Will the Minister also comment on the reform of standard salvage procedures? Haggling over contractual arrangements can cause fatal delays, and there seems to be a recognition at Lloyd's and among the shipping industry that salvage procedures need to be changed.
I come finally to what in a way is the most important question, and it is the extremely interesting one posed by the French Government's actions following the"Amoco Cadiz ". The Secretary of State for Wales did not touch upon this matter. The French regulations unilaterally extended French territorial waters to 12 miles, and they apply to the vessels of all flags within those limits. Some of the French requirements probably are not in accordance with generally accepted international law. Some people will say that they are in the nature of political propaganda. Others will say that they


are a brave attempt to carve out new ground. Those are the two arguments.
Are the unilateral actions of the French adding to greater confusion, given that if every nation regards its own national interests as paramount the painstaking work of IMCO will be undone? Or are we likely to be forced as a group of Channel States with a vital concern with oil pollution matters in the Channel—possibly through the EEC—to push the lawyers and international law in a manner reminiscent of what Peru, Iceland and other countries did with fishing limits on the law of the sea?
These are questions that we must ask ourselves. They are the current interesting questions posed by international law. As a nation, we have to recognise that we have a huge stake in the world oil business and a vital interest in the shipping cross trades. The danger of pursuing the French course for us as a nation is all too clear for our national interests—retaliation against our ships, uncertainty and, in the end, no real means of catching offenders. Those are the arguments against.
It would be clearer if the Government told the House which side they were on in this argument. If the Government do not agree with the actions of the French and believe that they are contrary to international law, they must say so. The Foreign Office cannot run everything. If the French action is contrary to international law and is damaging to our shipping interests, let the Government come out and say so.
My own preferred course is for far more vigorous action under the principles of the North Sea agreement. The Hague memorandum involves from next July much more rigorous port State action. This has come about with the support of IMCO and the ILO. It means that standards of international conventions come into force for all ships calling at the ports of a ratifying State whether the flag country has ratified or not. I was glad to hear that Italy and Ireland are prepared to attach their names to The Hague memorandum. If we can couple that agreement with the inspection procedures of the United States coastguard, it means that more and more ports in the main oil-consuming

countries will be closed to substandard ships. It provides a much more rapid means of raising standards.
I fully recognise the difficulty of these issues, and my hon. Friends will want to debate them. Will the Under-Secreretary say whether he thinks that the French action in trying to move forward into new areas of international law is correct? If so, I believe that the Government should be getting together with other coastal States of the English Channel, under The Hague memorandum, to push international law and the lawyers. If this is not possible because of our national interest in shipping and our national interest in the oil industry and it is necessary to proceed purely by means of IMCO and international agreements we should be clear that what the French have done is wrong.
I apologise for the technicality and length of my speech. Occasionally, I think we have to go into details on these issues. This is an emotive issue. It is an issue where it is easy to catch the headlines. At the same time, it is an issue that is very difficult. It is highly important to the country, and neither the country generally nor Parliament will forgive any Government who do not respond with urgency to the needs of the moment. I believe that the Select Committee was absolutely right to sound its warning. I shall listen to the comments of its Chairman and other members, who I hope will speak shortly, with considerable interest in what is a most difficult area of our law.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: This debate has been brought on at short notice; nevertheless I am glad that we have this early opportunity to discuss these important questions. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for writing to me saying that he would be dealing, partly at any rate, with the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the"Eleni V"oil tanker incident.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) made a not very convincing attempt to bring in party points, but there is no party point in this issue, as the House must know. The Select Committee, like all Committees of this House, is made up of hon. Members in


proportionate strength of the parties of the House. We looked at the issue according to the obligations placed on us by the House as a practical administrative question. One of the silliest fictions in British parliamentary government is that, with vast, modern Government Departments, Ministers can be directly responsible for and know about every detail of administration. Of course, they have to carry the ultimate responsibility to Parliament, but to suppose that every administrative detail, and every happening that goes wrong, can be put at the door of the Minister is an absurdity that does not accord with modern life.
We on the Select Committee looked at the"Eleni V"incident from the point of view of the way in which the Department handled it. We believed that some general lessons could probably be learned for the future. I made that point when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), who said, quite fairly, that the Committee did not take a lot of evidence and did not go to the oil companies. Since its inception, 11 or 12 years ago, the Select Committee has published about 35 reports under my chairmanship and the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). Some of these reports are lengthy, some of them are short. If one wants to get out a report quickly, one must exercise economy in taking evidence. We called the former Secretary of State for Trade, who very willingly came before us. We also called the local authorities with experience in this type of incident on the East Anglian coast—the Suffolk and Norfolk county councils, the Great Yarmouth local authority, the Suffolk coastal authority and the Waveney district council—and we deliberately limited ourselves to those witnesses. We had also written evidence, which has been published. If the report is inadequate because we did not probe further, then we must accept that criticism. Perhaps we should have gone further, but, if so, the report would not have been before the House today.
We looked at the national organisation for dealing with these matters. There is a general wide division between the Department and the local authorities. The authorities are responsible for dealing with oil spilled on beaches up to one mile out. The Department of Trade is responsible for any shipwreck or other

sea hazard that threatens to cause oil pollution.
The Select Committee said plainly that it thought that there was little justification for this curious"mile out"division between the Department of Trade and the local authorities. Why the limitation of one mile out to sea should be selected is hard to understand. No one seems to have justified it. I should have thought that the Department of Trade should have entire responsibility for dealing with the spillage actually on the water and approaching the beaches.
The Department of Trade marine survey office has divided the United Kingdom into nine districts, each headed by a principal officer—as the Minister said —with seagoing experience. We make no criticism of the officer dealing with the"Eleni V ", of whom everyone spoke highly, but we strongly criticise the lack of independent authority given to him. It was clear that too much had been referred back to London for approval to be given for action. Men of this competence and this kind of natural courage to take decisions should be given full opportunity to do so. They understand that if things go wrong they run the risk of being called before Committees of this House, among other sanctions. We would get much closer to administrative reality then. I emphasise that there is no criticism of the officer; we are criticising the lack of independent power given to him.
Each principal officer, we understand, is obliged to produce his own pollution plan after consultation with the local authorities and all other relevant bodies. The local authorities have their own plans. Warren Spring, the laboratory that has great knowledge of oil matters, also has its responsibilities. The local authorities told us, rightly or wrongly, that there was consultation, in the sense that the Department of Trade told them what it proposed to do. The Department kept them well informed but did not consult them in any way when planning its proposed action or actions.
There again, if the officer on the spot had more independent authority, he could naturally work much better with his local authority counterparts. We deal in detail in our report, in paragraphs 14 to 17, with the schemes of preparation for these eventualities.
An important point to note about the"Eleni V"operation is that the ship was carrying heavy fuel oil. There is apparently hardly any preparation for dealing with a spillage of this commodity. There is preparation for crude oil but we were told that heavy fuel is difficult, chemically, to disperse. Warren Springs is now busy trying to find solutions. Perhaps its expert researchers will find them in the end, but the assumption seems to have been made that nearly every tanker wrecked in this way will be carrying crude oil, not fuel oil.
Between 7 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the oil carried around our coasts is fuel oil. With land transport costs rising all the time, more is likely to be carried, so all energies should be bent to finding a solution for dealing with heavy fuel oil.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Will my hon. Friend accept that with all the good will and expertise in the world, no country has yet found an antidote to this problem?

Mr. Palmer: I said more or less the same thing—that it was extremely difficult. Nevertheless, the assumption made in the preparations was that normally crude oil would be carried in tankers. I have heard of many scientific and technical problems which had no solution at one time, but solutions were found, with persistence. I merely suggest that much more effort and money should be devoted to that end.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Is it not true also that the Norwegian approach is to have booms for collecting the oil rather than to seek to disperse it?

Mr. Palmer: I am dealing with the chemical solution, but I believe that that is so.
One of our major criticisms—I think a fair one—of the handling of this incident was that it took 25 days before the wreck was finally disposed of. We set out our criticisms in paragraph 51 of the report and list in detail some of the options considered—some of which were never options at all. Time was taken talking about them, yet they should never have been seriously proposed.
Instead of taking thought at the beginning about what the options might be and then, to use an electrical phrase,

placing them in parallel so that those in charge could move quickly to the next if one did not work, in this case, if one method did not seem to work, a day or two was spent consulting or referring to London before another course was tried. That was the series approached when that option broke down, they went to the third, and so on. Altogether it seems much like the strategy followed by generals who lose wars. In short, the practical handling of the"Eleni V"incident did not reflect well on the general organisation of the Department and the methods that it applies.

Mr. Fell: From the point of view of the Department, the incident was handled well at the beginning. The clearing up of the beaches went splendidly, although there was some delay at Lowestoft, but the difficulty was in decision-making, as the hon. Gentleman so rightly said. The difficulty was the days spent in waiting for decisions.

Mr. Palmer: I am glad to have the agreement of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Fell) who has a real constituency interest and no doubt has been very much in touch with those on the spot who handled the situation but were handicapped by those on high.
To give an example of what I mean: in the end, Smit International, a Dutch salvage firm, disposed of the wreck. We were told that that was the only firm with sufficient experience to do it. If so, why was it not consulted in the first place, instead of after some weeks? That is an example of how not to make decisions.
My colleagues on the Select Committee will agree that a report by a Select Committee can never be the last word in a matter of this kind because it is based upon limited evidence, but we shall have served our purpose—the report gained considerable publicity, even if some of it was a little sensational—if the Department of Trade is now rescued from any charge of complacency. I think that there was early complacency. Without flattering ourselves too much, I think that the Select Committee's investigations stirred up the Department. The Department will never admit it, but I am sure that that was the the case.
There have been these new appointments, which might never have been made without our investigation. I may be


wrong, but it is a natural suspicion. There is no need for the Department to apologise. We all learn from experience and should learn from our critics. I am hoping that the White Paper that we are promised will come before Christmas will show in more detail the new or more developed organisation that the Secretary of State has in mind.
I think that we are fair to the Department. We accept that no two incidents can be the same. In paragraph 70 we take the side of the Department—because we are anxious to take a balanced view—by saying that it could not foresee everything: no human being could. But we say later that although the Department could not foresee the future, once the incident occurred everything took much longer than it should have done.
The Secretary of State referred with some little feeling to the statement of the Select Committee that captured the headlines—our report came out at about the time that the"Christos Bitas"wreck was on the boil, so it was very topical—that the South Coast was virtually unprotected even against moderate spillages. That view was based on the evidence given to us. We said:
 The probability of a major disaster occurring in the Channel is far higher than the preparation level of DoT for the Channel as a whole of 6.000 tons suggests. The size of tankers and the frequency of their using the Channel makes the likelihood of any incident involving a spill of over 6,000 tons (as opposed to under) very high. Furthermore, in any one part of the Channel the spraying capacity is far less than 6,000 tons. This means that, in effect, the DoT's preparations in the Channel bear no relation to the likely size of any oil pollution incident, and leave the south coast virtually unprotected.
That is the charge that we make. If the Department is now able to provide a full answer to show that that charge is not justified we shall be happy to take note of it.
The Under-Secretary of State worked hard during this incident. He was constantly on the job. In several statements he said that there was a limit to the size of preparations that a Government could make for dealing with such matters. I agree; that limit is set by money. One could compare the situation with preparing for a drought of the size of that which occurred two or three years ago. If a Government put down enough reservoir

capacity to deal with such a drought they would waste a great deal of money, because such droughts are not likely to occur often.
Nevertheless, the Select Committee was of the opinion that, judged by the"Eleni V"incident—the only incident that we examined—the medium-run oil tanker wreck must be better handled in future by advanced planning, where that is appropriate, and by better tactical decisions at the time.
Much has already been said about the ultimate solution, which is to avoid the wrecks. It is obvious to most of us that the navigational standard of oil tankers leaves much to be desired. I am not a seaman, but I am told by those with experience of the sea that while the automatic devices for navigation no doubt add to the total safety of ships, reliance is sometimes placed so much on them that seamanship of the good old-fashioned kind is neglected, but is still needed in an emergency.
All the nations of the world must examine that situation. I was encouraged by what the Secretary of State said about the European nations coming together. In waters that are as busy as those which surround our coastline we require lanes along which ships must move, similar to the arrangements that, of necessity, have been made for aeroplanes.
Mankind has used ships since about 4000Bc. As a result, there are ancient customs about navigation which are not easily overthrown. The freedom of the sea is a basic convention, but I doubt whether the civilised world can continue to tolerate the old assumptions about ships being able to move anywhere they want, when they please.
The French have a direct naval way of dealing with such matters. The new French policy is either to shoo the ships away or bring them in. I do not think that that system can be operated by the United Kingdom, and the French will soon discover its crudity.

Mr. Adley: Is not one of the problems that the requirement for navigational skill is laid down by the country concerned? Britain has a high standard and other countries a lower standard. Most of the ships are well insured with


Lloyds. At the moment there are inadequate inducements for"driving"skills for those countries which have lower standards than Britain.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Member is probably right. The seagoing records of the"Eleni V"and the "Christos Bitas"are appalling. One cannot help thinking that those ships have had a whole series of captains who are blind in the ordinary sense and that that is why they have kept hitting rocks and imposing hazards on other people.
An ultimate international solution must be found. In the meantime, I hope that as a result of the Select Committee's investigation there will be an improvement in the Department's administration for dealing with tanker spills when they do occur.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) emphasised the fact that the debate was demanded by hon. Members in all parts of the House. The demand was made as a result of his report and because of the bland assurances and over-confident attitude of Ministers in a sometimes lackadaisical approach to the problem of coastal oil pollution.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East said that there were no party political points to be made, but it is necessary to be highly critical of what the Government have done. It is no use hiding this away. Proof of this slight pomposity and over-confident approach was given this afternoon in the reply to a Question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and a subsequent supplementary question by myself. These answers implied that everything was under control and that all possible facilities were there to deal with the problem. Those hon. Members who represent coastal constituencies and are close to the problem know that this is anything but the truth.
One need not go as far back as the"Torrey Canyon"disaster for proof of the present situation. I raised the matter in an Adjournment debate in July. I was given bland assurances. There were also bland assurances by the Secretary of State for Trade in his statement on 2nd August.

He said that everything was all right and well under control. But we who are concerned with the matter know that that is anything but the case.
If further proof is necessary, one has only to look at the correspondence that I have had since the early-day motion was tabled from the Association of District Councils, the Association of County Councils and the advisory committee on pollution of the sea to realise their anxiety that things are not as they should be.

Mr. Molloy: How many letters has the hon. Member received from the oil companies about this matter?

Mr. Emery: I have been discoursing and in correspondence with the oil companies for 12 years about these matters. I believe that oil companies could do more. I hope to make some suggestions that the Minister might wish to adopt.
I shall take a slightly different approach in order to try to convince the House of the significance of the problem. Lord Rothschild, in his Dimbleby lecture on BBC television, talked about risk-taking and probability as factors in coming to decisions in everyday government. I should like to apply that principle to the problem of coastal oil pollution. That might suddenly awaken the great British public to the extreme risk of coastal pollution.
Statistically, the risk of an"Amoco Cadiz"type of tragedy affecting the British coast stands at 3,500 to 1. The risk of an incident of the"Eleni V"or the"Christos Bitas"variety is as low as 500 to 1. That means that the probability is that a vast disaster will hit the British coast every 10 years and a minor pollution tragedy will occur every 18 months. They will arise because of collision, bad management at sea, the breaking of oil lines during transhipment, as a result of lightening or because of the fracturing of an oil pipeline delivering oil from North Sea collection platforms. That last disaster has not yet happened here, but it has happened in the United States, and there is every likelihood that at some time it will present us with a major problem.
These incidents will arise however good or strict are the regulations on shipping lanes, pumping out, or boat movements.


They will happen because human error is bound to arise. The risk of a disaster happening between six and nine times in the next decade is quite unacceptable. Therefore, while I welcome the able speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), who concentrated on the question of prevention—I wish everything possible to be done to stop or control the cause of coastal oil pollution —I want to concentrate on the need to upgrade all aspects of the cure for coastal pollution after it has occurred.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Is that not the intention of the debate? Is it not intended that we should concentrate on what happens after oil has been released, rather than on the means of preventing collisions, about which another Select Committee will be reporting, anyway?

Mr. Emery: My hon. Friend may or may not be correct. I sought guidance on this aspect from the Leader of the House last Thursday. He said that the debate would be on oil spillage and that the Select Committee report could be considered. He felt that a debate of the type now suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) would probably be preferable in order to prevent this subject arising in the Second Reading debate on the Merchant Shipping Bill later this week.
I wish to deal, therefore, with five categories. These are oil dispersal at sea after the event; the cleansing of the coast; wild life preservation with bird cleaning and marine preservation; the research to cover all of these matters; and planning and co-ordination for coping with the whole subject.
The natural breakdown, by weather, of oil before it reaches the coast or coastal waters and the spraying of oil with detergents are still the most effective methods of dispersal. However, when there is a major tanker wreck on rocks off the coast, time is likely to preclude either of the above methods of dispersal stopping vast tonnages of oil from reaching the beaches. The"Amoco Cadiz"was absolute proof of that.
The circumstances surrounding the"Amoco Cadiz"are particularly worrying for hon. Members with coastal constituencies in the South-West. The vessel

was bound for Lyme Bay to lighten before it went aground off the French coast.
As vast quantities of oil are bound to come ashore after a collision, have all methods for dispersal been thoroughly examined? How thorough has been research into the use of hovercraft or helicopters, in conjunction with base detergents, for first-stage emulsification? It is suggested that the creation of much greater surface disturbance by hovercraft or helicopters could more quickly assist natural dispersal than would be achieved by a number of small craft spraying.
How far have we progressed in considering suction pumping with gravity separation—a system described by the Americans as a massive Hoover? Work has been done on that in the United States.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Does it surprise my hon. Friend to know that a small company in my constituency which specialises in pumping peculiar materials says that it could produce a pump that would pump crude even at sea temperatures, if someone would ask it?

Mr. Emery: That is what concerns me. A whole host of ideas have been presented to me in correspondence—ideas which it seems have not been thoroughly examined, or at least for which there is no evidence of their having been examined.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon Friend aware that as long ago as May 1976 I took the chairman of a company in my constituency to the Department of Industry, which is supposed to be in charge of the Warren Spring laboratory, to try to get more impetus put behind a technology that this company was developing, and that now, two and a half years later, there is a certain amount of interest in correspondence back and forth? At last a British company has put up £100,000 to finish the development of this technology, but the Department is not very interested.

Mr. Emery: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which he has been able to get clearly on the record.
I need convincing that there exists a catalogue of small craft that could be available, with crews who know exactly


what to do, should they be needed to deal with a major oil slick. Will the Minister say how many stand-by boats have been recruited on the south coast of Cornwall and Devon? Do they have the necessary equipment, and the crews the knowledge and training to use detergent spray equipment in the event of an emergency?
It would be no use our thinking, after the event, that we should have had such a list. That list should be prepared now, in advance, for the entire British coast. Who would take the lead in supervising that? Would it be the Minister, or would it, as I fear, be left to chance?
I move on now to the question of cleansing the coast. If the planning and co-operation of emergency procedure is so good, and if the pools of equipment are adequate, why are local authorities, mainly the district councils, spending large sums to purchase dispersal equipment of their own? They are not spending ratepayers' money for fun; they are doing it because they have no confidence in the present plans or in the availability of equipment in an emergency. Does the Minister consider that it makes sense for local authorities to continue with this sort of local expenditure?
Is there an overall inventory—updated annually, I hope—of the equipment possessed by the Departments of Trade and the Environment, the Navy, the district and county councils, and the coastguard and harbour boards, so that those concerned may know where the equipment is, to draw upon it? If not, why not? This has been done in Australia for years. That country has an overall plan, with all this sort of information available and updated annually.
There is also extreme criticism about communications and emergency planning. The Select Committee report makes this quite evident, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). Whatever the Minister may have said about information from his officials, or whatever he may honestly believe, local authorities are not clear about the lines of communication. Nor do they consider that there is any sense of leadership. They are uncertain on co-ordination, on action to be taken, and on the assistance available to them if tragedy hits their part of the coast.
Eleven years after the"Torrey Canyon"incident this situation is unforgiveable. Local authorities are uncertain about the monetary aid that will be given if a vast effort has to be mounted because tragedy has hit their locality. Why? Surely these matters could be clearly defined? It is not acceptable that such costs should fall unevenly on the electors of unfortunate boroughs or local councils. We have known this all along. A scheme should be devised and published
The work of the RSPCA and other voluntary bodies in saving the lives of sea birds deserves the highest praise. However, each time there is a tragedy. Heath Robinson measures—I suppose British measures—are brought into play so that, somehow, voluntary help is made to go a long way in saving flocks of birds otherwise condemned to a lingering death. An expert speaking after the"Christos Bitas"affair made it plain that if there had been properly co-ordinated plans before the event many hundreds, if not thousands, of wild birds could have been saved. Why cannot we even deal properly with that aspect of the problem?
I turn now to the question of research, although I have already touched on the problem in talking about new methods for dispersal at sea. I understand that the Government research laboratory at Warren Spring has spent much time on these problems. Everybody accepts that, but is the Minister satisfied with what has been achieved? Does he believe that, practically and reasonably, everything has been done that should have been done'' Surely this debate, if nothing else, will convince him that that is not the case. Surely he must realise that a great deal more effort is needed to deal with detergents, bunker"C"oil, and the methods of collecting heavy oils at sea and from rocky surfaces around the coasts? If he is satisfied perhaps he will tell the House. Let him be quite certain that I am particularly dissatisfied. Something extra has to be done.
I know that I shall be accused of demanding extra Government expenditure at a time when the Tories are urging a cut in such expenditure. I do not believe that that is necessary. It is here that I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). I believe that the Government


ought to be calling on the oil companies operating in this country which, I believe would be more than willing, to put up considerable sums of money for further research into action on pollution. It is in their interests so to do because in the long run it should be realized—

Mr. Molloy: Who has been stopping the oil companies?

Mr. Emery: I do not believe that the Government have invited them to do so. So let us ask the Government. This is part of the criticism that I make. It should be realised that 60 per cent. of every British oil tanker is owned by the oil companies and that 30 per cent. of all oil tankers throughout the world are owned by the shipping companies. When a problem of pollution on the beaches arises these oil companies and the shipping lines will be called upon for the many millions, if not hundreds of millions, of pounds needed to pay for the clearing up.
Why, then, should the oil companies be against putting more money into research, to save themselves this cost in the long run? I have been led to believe that, so long as this could be done sensibly and could be properly co-ordinated, the oil companies would be willing to co-operate. Will the Minister take this idea on board and see whether action could he taken to see such a plan implemented?

Mr. Palmer: The oil companies have their own laboratories.

Mr. Emery: That is true, and that is why I say that the companies ought to he told what is necessary in terms of coordination. I believe that a degree of co-operation has not been achieved, because the Government have not approached them to try to find ways of bringing it about.
I turn to the question of planning and co-ordination. I know—and every Member of the House must have the evidence —that a vast amount of paper work has been done in Whitehall in connection with the problem of oil pollution. There are Cabinet Office papers, departmental and inter-departmental papers, Her Majesty's Services papers, and papers on co-ordination, approach, reaction, action and counter-action. So it goes on. More

and more paper proliferates. Assurances are given and statements made, but what positive action has been taken about the creation of a body to mastermind this problem? The answer, 11 years after the"Torrey Canyon," is"None ". Some form of overall master plan is necessary.
It is nonsense that the co-ordinating Minister responsible for oil pollution should be in the Department of Trade. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives asked me to argue this point, and I shall do so as quickly as possible. For the sponsoring Minister for shipping, who plays a major role in the international coordination of the oil companies' interests with the Department of Energy, to be responsible with the local authorities for all the action of clearing up and dealing with pollution control is like having the perpetrator being made responsible for the prevention. I believe, as many do, that on a matter affecting such specific issues as finance, equipment, local government factors at district and county level, the work of voluntary bodies, and the efforts of the military, the Minister responsible should be from the Department of the Environment.
I accept immediately the argument that to change from one Minister to another will not automatically mean that the problem will be cured. It needs an active Minister who takes this problem on board and sets about creating the kind of master plan that I have been urging. The present situation is unacceptable. Opinions about our ability to cope with a major tragedy range from"Well, with a typical bit of British patching up we might get by"to"I do not know how we would be able to cope if it was on the ' Amoco Cadiz' level." That sort of approach is unacceptable, and must be unacceptable to the House as a whole.
The House needs to know when the Prime Minister intends to turn over to a Minister in the Department of the Environment overall responsibility for dealing with coastal oil pollution. When will this new Minister organise central and regional conferences, so that everyone concerned with this subject will know what is expected of them? That is certainly not the case at present. When will this new Minister cause the Department to publish an inventory of the equipment available for an emergency clearing-up operation? When will regulations be


established enabling local boats to be used? When are we to have a register of small boats, which can be used in this way as well as for training purposes? When will the Government seek better co-operation with and funding from the oil companies for research into the problems of coastal pollution? Arising from this, when will the Minister publish his thoughts on co-ordination between local authorities, coastguards and the voluntary organisations? All this deals with what must be done in an emergency. Many of these bodies do not understand how things will be arranged.
I want more than assurances; I want dates put to these answers. In that way we shall be able to check whether things are being done. Assurances have already been allowed to slide. Until we have these assurances, with firm dates attached, every constituency around our coast has reason to be worried about the unacceptably high degree of risk of pollution. Until we know that there are curative methods being employed, this is a matter which must concern every Member of Parliament.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) has detailed a large number of the things that hon. Members want to see done. I start from the same point as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). He and I entered this House at the same time. We were both blooded on the beaches of Cornwall—wading in Wellington boots through what seemed to be brown chocolate, in the aftermath of the"Torrey Canyon."
I was a member of the Select Committee that was set up following the"Torrey Canyon"disaster. The Committee reported in 1968. Reading the report on the"Eleni V"gives me an appalling feeling of déjà vu. It is all there again, even to the bewilderment of the boffins from Warren Spring, stirring the stuff around with their feet and saying"Let's try this and that." Much the same thing was being done at the time of the"Torrey Canyon"affair. We do not seem to have made many steps forward since then.
I know that with the"Eleni V"we are dealing with a different and particu-

larly difficult type of oil. We have not had the same experience of dealing with it as we have had with normal crude oil. However, it still appears that we have not made much progress. Perhaps we can conclude either that there has been a degree of incompetence on the part of the authorities responsible in the intervening years, or that some of the problems do not have solutions.
I accept that some problems may not have solutions. There is clearly no answer to the overall problem other than, perhaps, the solutions of the eco-extremists who would give up oil for Christmas, and beyond. That does not seem to be something that any of us can accept, certainly not in the short or medium term. As long as we use oil it has to be brought to us and accidents are bound to happen.
The aims of policy must be common to all of us. First, we must seek to minimise the number of accidents. Secondly, we must try to minimise the harmful effects of oil spillages when accidents occur and, thirdly, we must reach some decision about who pays for the after effects, for the measures to counter spillages and to clean up. I deal first with the problem of how to minimise the number of accidents, and in doing so I concentrate on the"Torrey Canyon"and the"Christos Bitas ". The accidents involving those vessels occurred in the area that I know best. The accidents affected my own constituency and the whole of the South-West.
These two incidents are of further interest because neither was a collision in the sense of two ships colliding. We all know about the problems of the English Channel. We have read about them in the evidence to the Select Committee. We have seen the number of traffickings backwards and forwards and the amount of oil carried. We know that this is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world and that the likelihood is that in bad—sometimes even in good—sea conditions two ships will collide. With the"Torrey Canyon"and the"Christos Bitas ", no other ships were involved. I was utterly mystified at the time of the"Torrey Canyon"disaster as to how it could possibly have happened. We were told"Well, it takes a long time to steer these things. Once you have decided you are on the wrong course, you go on that course for


a long time and cannot turn the ship round."
The mind boggles as to how the "Christos Bitas"managed to get on the rocks. We can but conclude that it was due to plain lousy seamanship, or something worse. There are four ways in which the crew of the"Christos Bitas"should have known that they were off course. First, there was plain eyesight. There was perfectly good visibility, in broad daylight. They must have been able to see the Welsh coast for a long time before they got there.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: indicated dissent.

Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) knows that coast better than I do. That is all that I can deduce from the reports that I have seen.
Next, there was the radio fix. There was no lack of radio stations on to which the vessel could have fixed. It was so much off the correct course that a radio fix of approximate accuracy would have warned the crew a long time before the vessel hit the rocks. Thirdly, there is the geography of the sea bottom. For a long time before the vessel hit the rocks it was in shallow water. Any chart of that area shows that the sea bottom slopes away quickly. The vessel should have been in very much deeper water. The difference between the depth which the vessel was in and the depth in which it should have been was no marginal matter. It was a distinct difference. Fourthly, there was the radar. Even if the crew could not see the Welsh coast—and no doubt the hon. Member for Pembroke will tell us why if he succeeds in catching the eye of the Chair—they could certainly have seen it on their radar screen.
There are four methods by which the crew ought to have known that they were off course. Yet for some inexplicable and incredible reason they steered straight at the rocks. Why? A great deal of tanker work is excessively boring. Much of it is obviously put on to the automatic pilot. Nevertheless, there are supposed to be members of the watch keeping a lookout. I suspect that boredom is having much the same effect on tanker crews as it has had on the American Service man serving in Europe.
I suspect that far too much alcohol, and possibly even worse, is being taken on board these tankers. That is something with which we cannot deal. We can write all sorts of international regulations. How experienced seamen could have got that ship on to these rocks other than in the way that I have suggested I do not know.
There are only two radical proposals for dealing with the problem. The first is that there should be compulsory pilotage, and the second calls for a vast array of surveillance. Both these are recommended in the EEC document before us. R/1004/78. Page 19 says:
Enhancing the safety of navigation. The coastal State would have power to require the use of a pilot in dangerous zones and towage in the event of damage.
We all say"Hear, hear"to that. Unfortunately, the evidence given to the Expenditure Committee by Department of Trade representatives on 10th May was as follows:
 Deep-sea pilotage operates in international waters: in United Kingdom and other European countries the service is offered by commercial organisations.
That evidence concluded
 Any proposal to make the use of deep-sea pilots compulsory in certain circumstances or for, say VLCCs, would interfere with the freedom of movement of shipping in international waters.
That is what the House must call for. We must interfere with the freedom of shipping in international waters, or that international shipping will interfere with our constituencies and with our constituents' interests. Therefore it is vital that we take these powers. If we have to do it through international organisations, let us hurry. That is one of two radical proposals that can deal with the problem.
The other proposal mentioned on the same page of the EEC documents is surveillance. The document says on that topic:
 It is also necessary to study the introduction of a reporting and surveillance system for tanker movements and of an obligation to notify any damage or discrepancy without delay to the riparian state.
That is essential and has to be done. All the reports that have appeared on minor and major incidents since the"Torrey Canyon ", both in this country and abroad, have indicated that those are the only two ways in which we shall substantially reduce the number of accidents and incidents.
We have learned a great deal through the activities of our Select Committee"Eleni V"about the lack of preparedness for heavy fuel oils. If we are trying to deal with the problem we have to realise that it presents a substantial difficulty. The dispersants do not easily work on the oil. I am sure that Warren Spring has done a great deal of research, but it has not cracked the problem. The Minister agreed that the problem has not been cracked elsewhere in the world. At present we do not have an answer to the problem posed by heavy fuel oil, but let us at least concentrate on the oil problems to which we can find an answer.

Mr. Macfarlane: If the research laboratories do not have the answer to heavy fuel oils, surely the oil companies should have a social responsibility in this respect. What depressed me about the evidence on that matter was that there is now a wide range of petroleum products, in so many waters off our coasts, and the oil companies do not seem to be volunteering as much detailed information to the Department as many people believe they should.

Mr. Pardoe: I am glad that that intervention came from the hon. Gentleman who has a considerable knowledge of these matters.
We can be certain that normal crude oil will burn provided that it is burnt at once. In the case of the"Torrey Canyon"we had to burn it eventually, or at least we had to try to do that by bombing but by the time we got round to bombing all the burnable substances had disappeared. It was almost impossible to set the rest alight.
I believe that we have now reached the situation, following experience with the"Torrey Canyon"the"Amoco Cadiz"and the"Eleni V ", where we can be certain that it is better to deal with the oil at sea than to wait for it to come ashore. Secondly, we do not know how to stop it coming ashore, and no amount of debating about booms will solve the problem. There are booms that can cope with certain kinds of waters but we know that most booms cannot cope with more than about 1½ knots of current. Around the British coastline 1½ knots of current is common. We have to do something

to deal with the oil at sea, and quickly. That means that we have to set it alight. We have to take power to deal with the ship immediately the incident happens.
In 1968 the Select Committee said that bombing was the last resort. Of course it is, because it is not an accurate operation, as was illustrated by the"Torrey Canyon ". It is very difficult to hit a ship several times in that way. But at least with the experience of the"Eleni V"behind us we know that it is possible to explode a ship. It can be done by divers and should be done at the very first instance. I believe that those are the types of solutions at which we should aim.
I should like to comment briefly on the subject of finance. The hon. Member for Honiton gave the proportion of tankers owned by the oil companies. If we go only for those who own, we shall always be in difficulty about getting payment and compensation. The answer, surely, is to make the charterer responsible. He is the person who owns the oil. The owner of the oil must be responsible. One then finds that the oil companies are about 100 per cent. responsible rather than 30 per cent. That matter must be cleared up. We shall argue backwards and forwards on every incident on the lines"It is the charterer who is responsible or is it this company or that company?"We shall then have to ask"Is the ship registered in this country or that?"We shall also have to determine whether international law applies and all the rest of it. Therefore the matter must come back to the oil companies. It is their oil and they must be held responsible.
I believe that those are the only real solutions to the problem. Nobody claims that he has a total solution. There will be accidents and accidents with which we cannot deal satisfactorily, but in the foreseeable future those are the measures that should be adopted.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: In opening the debate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales asked the House not to over-react to these matters of oil spillage. My complaint is that over the years there has been a great deal of under-reaction.
A number of hon. Members have complained about the lack of action since the


" Torrey Canyon"disaster 11 years ago. It is only when disaster occurs that minds appear to click into action. It takes a dramatic event to start anything happening. We first had the"Torrey Canyon"disaster and then"Ekofisk Bravo ". There was a great deal of fuss in the House at the time because of the large amounts of oil that spilled on to our coasts. However, a short time afterwards the indignation simmered down. Then came the"Amoco Cadiz"disaster, followed by the"Eleni V"incident. The latest episode has involved the"Christos Bitas ". However, in the intervals following all those incidents there was a lack of action.
Let me gently chide the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) who said that these events have been taking place since 1967. I have recently become the rap-porteur for a Council of Europe committee on environment and we are engaged in producing a report arising out of the"Eleni V"disaster and the"Ekofisk Bravo"incident. During my background research I discovered that way back in 1954 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was then a member of the Council of Europe, raised the subject of oil pollution in the North Sea. However, it took four years before anything was put on the statute book on that subject. The convention was not ratified by all the nations concerned until 1958.
In 1961 more action was demanded. What happened then? The reply given by the Committee of Ministers was:
 The Committee of Ministers is well aware of the importance of the intergovernmental conference…and several member governments fully approve its aims. However, the committee does not think that it is possible at the present stage to fix any date after which the discharge of oil into the sea shall be totally prohibited. The special port installations for the discharge of oil are still inadequate and, as well as being costly "—
I suspect that the cost factor is the main reason for inaction—
 their construction raises difficult technical problems which it will take some time to solve.
Therefore, this problem did not begin as late as 1967, but very much earlier.
I believe that there is a serious problem of pollution of the North Sea from our rivers. More than 50 per cent. of North Sea pollution arises from coastal-based installations and from activities in

our rivers. That is a fact, and the House will have to do something about that form of pollution. That is not the subject matter of our debate today, but it is as well not to forget, when we consider the 5 per cent. of pollution created by major disasters, that we have that other pollution of the sea by oil—well over 50 per cent.—coming from shore-based installations and from our rivers.
I shall not dwell on the question of dispersants. There have been adequate illustrations from hon. Members with constituencies directly affected showing what they consider ought to be done with regard to dispersants and the like. This is a difficult question. It figured in part of the evidence which we took in an all-day hearing in Paris on 4th July. Great worry was expressed by the companies which gave evidence. For example, I understand that the dispersant which was used to get rid of the"Torrey Canyon"oil did more harm than good, especially to flora and fauna and sea life along that coast. Since then there has been a lot of research, but it is difficult to produce a quick put it right"answer. I believe that the various bodies concerned, however, are actively taking themselves along the line for settling the dispersant question.
What worries me is the maritime situation, the substandard ship and the possibility of collisions. Those are the worries which must activate our minds. One reason why I say that is that when we took evidence in Paris we heard some remarkable statements. For example, Mr. Walder, representing the international oil companies' marine forum, said:
 The view of our industry, which is supported by many independent studies, is that by far the greatest single cause of tanker accidents is human fallibility. Some 85 per cent. of all navigation accidents can be directly attributed to human failure.
Those are remarkable figures when taken in the context of the number of ships passing through the Channel between Britain and France today. Mr. Walder's comment was that we should do well if we tackled the question of the substandard ship.
At the same hearing we heard comments about flags of convenience and the difficulties that we have with them. Here, I quote Mr. Humphrey of IMCO:
 I say ships entering their ports ', and I cannot emphasise too strongly that this applies


without reference to flags. There are no substandard flags; there are only substandard ships, substandard crews and substandard owners. Here the question of the nature of criteria for registry is irrelevant. What matters is whether the authorities of the State have the power and will to control "—
that is, to control ships when they come into their ports.
That is an important criterion to be taken on board. Over many years IMCO has put it forward to all the flag States, stressing the problem of the substandard ship. The question for us is what we do about it and about agreements which are proposed or entered into. In this respect, we find that IMCO complains bitterly about the small number of nations ratifying the conventions which are produced. For example, to take an important convention which was referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, the MARPOL convention of 1973, with the 1978 protocol attached to it, only three nations have adopted it. Who were they?—Jordan, Kenya and Tunisia, and according to Mr. Sasamura, the spokesman of IMCO, that amounts to zero per cent. of the world's maritime nations.
What have we done? I look forward to hearing on Thursday, when we discuss the Merchant Shipping Bill, what we are doing to take ourselves a little further along those lines. It is no good international bodies putting their energies and expertise into these matters, at the behest of all the nations involved, if no one takes any notice.
Again, the evidence which we took revealed a strong feeling about what happens with regard to substandard ships and the like. The substandard ship presents a problem. How does one do anything about it? The Americans have found a way. They have an extremely strong coastguard system, and there is nothing more influential towards putting a substandard ship right than the certainty of being hauled to order and, if necessary, being detained in port.
There is a difficulty for us here. We are acting not as one large maritime nation but as a conglomeration of nations with coastlines on the North Sea and the Mediterranean. If we hope to control the substandard ship, there must be some co-ordination among nations. The hold-

ing of a conference on the law of the sea on the world stage looks marvellous, but none of the large international concerns has accountability to anybody, and we must find some means of control.
I was extremely interested to read the documents presented from the EEC. The EEC has put forward a proposal to help control in the ports of its member States, the port States. That is fine. But the larger the geographical area which can be controlled, the better the outcome will be. I urge that something be done within the Council of Europe, now with its 20-nation membership and its enlarged Committee of Ministers. That body of 20 Ministers could be the body to which we turn. When discussing these matters, that committee could determine the standards which ships should meet if they came into the ports of their member States. Those nations would control the whole of the Mediterranean seaboard of Europe, the whole of Portugal and Spain, the two new members, together with the Scandinavian countries as well as the EEC ports. We should have something to get our teeth into there.
If a standard high enough, fairly applied right across the board in all ports, were applied to all ships irrespective of flag by the port States concerned, that would have a bigger effect in putting the substandard ship out of existence than would any other single factor.
I suggest, therefore, that the documents from the EEC could be taken as a springboard towards creating a wider body. Mr. Humphrey of IMCO, for example, said:
 It seems very reasonable that the countries which are members of the Council of Europe should do the same as the EEC and establish a coherent geographical region applying the same standards to ships entering their ports, and advise each other of what they are doing.
This is necessary because ships' captains and owners must know what the standards are; they must know that they will reasonably be faced with the same standards as they go into the various ports.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way. I do not dissent from the propositions which he is advancing, but is he not aware that the memorandum of understanding of the North Sea States under the aegis of the EEC, as encouraged now to be enlarged, is aiming at precisely that objective?

Mr. Bagier: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that fact and of the Hague memorandum. What I am considering is how to enforce it, because nine times out of 10—in fact, all the time —the willingness of the member countries to get something done goes without question, but the problem is to find the means. I am suggesting that the Hague memorandum, excellent as it is, could be extended and could be helped if we had the Committee of Ministers as such covering a much larger geographical body than the EEC, putting its efforts into bringing about what we want. I believe that that would have an excellent effect, and certainly that is the wish of the members of the Council of Europe as expressed in our recent debate. There was a unanimous wish to do that.
I recognise that there are many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches with constituency interests who wish to speak, so I shall conclude with some observations about the new contingencies planning and operations unit to which reference has been made, through which Rear-Admiral Stacey will operate. I make no complaint about the particular Ministry under which it will operate. I am delighted that there is to be such a unit because, as I understand it, it will talk not only about oil pollution and tanker accidents but about seepage, about control of the North Sea oil rigs and even, perhaps about some of the factors which worry our Scottish colleagues, namely other pollution which comes from the rigs.
I ask the Minister to remember that that was the wish of the Council of Europe. It accepted the resolution in which it was suggested that consideration be given to an international agency, comprising the European countries, acting in an overseeing capacity. If it were thought by the other countries that Britain was taking a step in the right direction by having an operations unit of the sort to which I have referred, they would accept that it made sense to coordinate their efforts to achieve the end product that we all desire.
The debate has been useful, as it has provided a sounding board for future action. If we do not act and if we continue to pollute our seas, our children our grandchildren and their children will never forgive us.

6.21 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) said nothing with which I disagree. The hon. Gentleman and I were in Paris together, and the quotation that he put before the House about the 85 per cent. margin of human error was in response to one of my questions. I was equally astonished that the percentage was so high.
When I first heard that the debate was to take place I was not altogether happy. Although I welcomed it intrinsically, I did not and do not want it to be used as an excuse by the Leader of the House for refusing the House a full debate on these issues. I know that today's debate will not be used as such an excuse by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis). I do not want the Leader of the House to say, when the Government's response has been published to the detailed criticisms of the all-party Select Committee-I have had some experience of this sort of response—that because we have had a short debate, we should not press the Government, it being only recently that the House debated the same subject. For that reason I felt rather unhappy when today's debate was announced. I exempt completely from my suspicions the Under-Secretary of State for Trade.
I referred to my suspicions in an intervention when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales was speaking. At that time I did not know that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade had courteously written to me explaining that the Government's response would be available before Christmas. I hope that when we return after the Christmas Recess there will be no argument by anyone on either side of the House that we have had our debate and that there is no need to press on to examine the matter further.
I make those remarks with considerable seriousness. I believe that they reflect the opinion of the majority of Members on both sides of the House. Three-hour debates must not be used as an excuse for not holding a debate on the report of a Select Committee, especially when the report reflects all-party criticism of the Government of the day.
I wish to concentrate on the practicalities. My first comment flows from the


fact elicited by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South and myself in Paris, namely, that 85 per cent. of all the tragedies arise from human error. What we really mean is that there is no logical reason other than the fact that captains, navigators, crews or the state of ships are responsible. In other words, factors apart from the fallibility of human control are limited to about 15 per cent.
There must be an answer to the percentages. I was interested when the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said that we must do more to bring about compulsory pilotage. As the Minister knows, that is a suggestion that I have plugged over and over again. I have been told that compulsory pilotage is not a panacea. I have never said that it is. Human error leading to 85 per cent. of accidents can apply to pilots as well as to others. However, such pilotage would obviously reduce substantially the chance of a major accident occurring.
I have spoken to a number of captains whose ships cover long distances. The problem that they face is similar to that faced by a driver who approaches London after a long drive from the country. The driver bound for London is tired at the very moment when he reaches the most hazardous and dangerous zone. I do not offer compulsory pilotage as a panacea, but, as with the driver who approaches London, it is when the maximum hazard appears and when the period of boredom and exhaustion is at its worst that extra facilities should be provided.

Mr. Molloy: The hon. Gentleman has given an excellent example of the tired driver who approaches London. However, when the driver reaches London he finds signs, aids and police to help him. Many of the tankers receive maritime aids such as coastguards, radar and direct messages. Tanker masters commit monstrous crimes when they blatantly ignore such facilities.

Sir F. Bennett: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I was saying that when the master of a tanker enters our waters he has reached the most difficult stage of the voyage. The hon. Gentleman's argument may be added to mine in favour of compulsory pilotage.
I forecast that if there is another major tragedy in which human error is shown to have caused the collision of a couple of large tankers the demand in Britain for compulsory pilotage will be overwhelming. Why not let us anticipate that and press on with a practical measure?
The second practical proposition that I put before the House was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, namely, increased surveillance so that if captains or pilots go off course they receive more warning. We must take into account that these errors occur although they should not. The same error may be repeated. We should be concentrating on remedies rather than arguing whether recommendations made in 1965 or 1967 have been implemented. We should not wait for yet another horrible tragedy before taking some decisive action.
I ask that the Minister publicises as widely as possible the facts about how accidents occur. I have the honour of representing Torbay. At every waking and sleeping hour my constituents and those of my neighbouring colleagues see many tankers conducting lightening operations only a few miles offshore. Psychologically that is extremely disturbing. The presence of what could cause a major disaster is within easily visible distance.
When the Minister replies to the debate I hope that he will take the opportunity to emphasise that if the lightening operations have to take place it is better that they are conducted in secure waters, bearing in mind the 85 per cent. margin being the major cause of disasters. As has already been said, one of the major causes is a ship in transit that goes off course and runs on to rocks when it should not have run off course in the first place.
Another psychological factor is that members of the public want to see for themselves that something is being done. They do not read just detailed reports. In Brixham there happens to be one of the very first examples of an oil spillage ship permanently on station. It may be seen by members of the public. The vessel is provided by three of the oil companies jointly. It is more or less a gesture, but it is a good one.
The suggestion that I have put to the owners—they have not yet taken it


up—is that they should have a large flag portraying the fact that it is an oil spillage vessel. When we have such resources along our coasts, I suggest that the Department makes it clear that they are available. Those who are interested will not read booklets and pamphlets about which port has one facility and which port has another. They will want to see for themselves. They will want to know if a major disaster takes place the Government and others have at least tried to provide effective measures.
I do not propose to waste my time criticising what one Minister or another may or may not have done. I do not wish to decide which of several Departments should take responsibility. I believe that every hon. Member knows what should be done. There is no logical reason for the present Government or a future Government not taking that action. If the necessary action is not taken, there will be a major upset when a disaster takes place that is infinitely worse than any that we have witnessed so far.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) said, with his particular knowledge of the Council of Europe. Much of what he said confirmed my experience as a Member of the European Parliament. I agree very much with the succinct, forceful and correct points made by the hon. Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett).
This matter is nothing new. It seems a terrible tragedy that whenever sources of energy are involved, people die, areas become polluted and nobody takes much notice until something really ghastly happens. In the area where I was born, nobody was concerned about the filth and muck that poured out of the mines and ruined our local environment. Nobody was even concerned about the appalling conditions under which men worked in the bowels of the earth until there was a terrible accident. Indeed, it is probably true to say, of all of us, that we seldom arrive at the frontiers of understanding until our own soul is smitten with grief.
The House may be surprised to know that the issue of oil pollution was very serious—even more serious than it is

today—in the 1930s. The reason for that was that around Great Britain there were only a few ports at which oil tankers could offload their crude oil, and it had to be stored, sometimes—certainly in Swansea, where I was born—a couple of hundred yards from where people lived. Then, there was no law—and if there had been, we know that oil companies take no notice of laws.
The only criticism I make of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), who opened the debate for the Opposition, is that though he quite rightly criticised and savaged, from time to time, Her Majesty's Government, he was extraordinarily shy about discussing the oil companies. They are the real culprits. They always have been. I shall tell the House what they used to do.
Not far from where I was born there is a little village called Oystermouth, which was once beautiful and picturesque. The oyster catchers used to go out and collect oysters. Then, suddenly, with the increased use of oil, great oil tankers would put into Swansea. When they left they would clean their great tanks in Swansea Bay. That not only caused us kids to get covered in rotten, filthy oil when we went bathing; it completely destroyed an industry that had been operating for hundreds of years and, indeed, an industry that is mentioned by Shakespeare in his plays about that area. The name"Oystermouth"today is a bit of a farce.
There is one other aspect that I should like to mention. I agreed with everything that was said by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe)—I am glad that he has returned to the Chamber—but he left out one important item. Of course, one can have certain pilots who will pilot these ships through, and better navigational aids; that is all right and proper. But human error and human malevolence can apply even to professional people engaged for a specific task. The sort of thing that happened when some of the oil tankers—usually owned by Greeks, hard up multi-millionaires—came hurtling up the British Channel to the Welsh coast immediately after the war was that they would get caught in a bit of a storm and fall to bits. But before they had fallen to bits, and before the terrible problem of pollution arose, there


was another item of which we ought to take cognisance.
In the great 1947 disaster—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North finds this funny—lifeboatmen went out and brought back 90 Greek sailors. In their final endeavour to bring back the last 10 sailors, they found that the storms were too strong. A few hours before, the lifeboatmen had been with their families. My own cousin, the deputy coxswain, was drowned. He had left a game of billiards. These men were suddenly called out to the lifeboat. Ships cracked up and the lifeboat rescued the men.
In my judgment, one has got to put that in the book of reckoning in deciding what one must do about instances such as these. We talk about the problem of, for example, the"Christos Bitas"or the"Torrey Canyon ", but they were massive and instant occurrences. Much of this pollution has been going on round our coastline for donkey's years and the House has done very little about it. It is only because of the sudden size of the problem that we are now having this debate.
The probability is that more filthy oil was deliberately washed out of the tankers around the Welsh coast than anything that the"Christos Bitas"has poured out, as it happens, in one evening or one afternoon. I understand, reading from certain specialised sections of the media, that this practice is still going on, because, we are told, there is no way of controlling it. There is no way of knowing whether these great tankers still cleanse themselves within a couple of miles of our coast—rid themselves of the filth which they know will take some time to come ashore, so that no one can be identified.
I know well the area in which the"Christos Bitas"affair took place. The reasons for this so-called accident involve a very serious maritime point. I shall not bore the House with the details, but I believe that it is fair to say that what the captain of the"Christos Bitas"did was almost the equivalent of going up the M1 or M4 motorway on the wrong side of the road. All the lightships and aids were there to tell him where he was going, and he ought to have kept to one side of the lightship. He did not. Then, when he was told where he was going, he took no notice.
People talk about faceless organisations. There is nothing so faceless as these multinational oil companies. Quite frankly, they seem to get away with murder. I hope that the investigation which is to take place will not merely bring this incident into proper focus by saying that it should not happen again, but will say that on the question of compensation —and there ought to be compensation, for all the damage caused—the people who ought to be included in that compensation are all those volunteers who did their best to clean the beaches—which cost some of them quite a lot—and those who spent a great deal of time, and lost working time, trying to save our wild life.
We must consider these comparatively new, massive tankers. When I was a child we used to be able to recognise a tanker very easily because its funnel was always at the back. Nowadays, when we see one coming round the Mumbles Head, we wonder whether it is, as Rudyard Kipling said, a massive, floating city full of dredge. If something happens to it, we know that our coast will be damaged.
Is there a need for tankers of such a size? At one time it was submitted that it was a very clever thing, because if the ship got into trouble and ran on to the rocks a number of the great containers could be floated off on their own to prevent the sort of pollution that has occurred. 'But that, apparently, is not the case at all. We were conned into believing that that was why they had to be that size. The oil companies did not want to give the real reason, which was for some form of economy—and we pay the bill in what seems to me sometimes deliberate despoliation of our environment.
I criticised many aspects of the"Christos Bitas" incident when it happened, because I have a deep interest in it, both from a human life point of view and because of the despoliation of a very beautiful part of Wales. I think that the speedy co-operation of the Government Department concerned is necessary. Incidentally, the Irish Government were admirable and could not have acted more quickly. But when we talk about full co-operation it has to be not merely cooperation in doing something after such a tragedy has happened but co-operation in its prevention.
This, I believe, was the gravamen of the speech made by the hon. Member for St. Ives. I endorse what he said. I only wish that he had found it equally necessary, as indeed the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) did, to make it quite clear that, when it all boils down, the major responsibility for this lies with the multinational oil companies.
If we can find a way of examining the question whether there was proper cooperation, this has to be done quickly. If we cannot get co-operation from other nations, the risk is too great. It means that this country ought to institute its own reasonable actions so that something can be done without having to have to form a committee to decide what to do. I t has been said that if Moses had had to form a committee to consult on how to cross the Red Sea, the Israelites would never have made it. We are in a somewhat similar position today. It is getting worse and worse. It is not a bit of use saying that first there was the"Torrey Canyon ", then the"Amoco Cadiz"and now the"Christos Bitas ". The probability is that there will be more.
There is one thing that I should like to see. It is in the arguments submitted by the Council of Europe and by the European Parliament. We should take one short, sharp principle and base our legislation and our preventive and curative action on it. That is that the polluter pays. There should be no arguments about acts of God, human error, not seeing the rocks, radar not being effective, or taking no notice of the coastguards. When that is all over, it will still stand that the polluter pays. The deterrent must be of such realistic and massive proportions that the oil companies will at last start taking cognisance of not only the laws of our land but the anguish felt by millions of ordinary people throughout our country.
Such a policy should and would receive the approval of the wise and, indeed, the applause of everyone in Britain. We are now approaching a situation in which we shall be so concerned about the dangers that energy brings that it might be as well if we did not have this form of energy and we returned to the old-fashioned days when all these threats did not exist. But it is possible, with resolute action and deterrents, for us to have the best of

both worlds. We should make an international crime of anything like the"Christos Bitas"incident in the future. It ought to have the condemnation and invoke the severest penalties not only of our country but of every other country that values its environment and its coast.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarvon): The remarkable unanimity in this debate on what needs to be done, and done urgently, should be the writing on the wall for the Department of Trade. At last people on all sides have woken up, without any question, to the dangers inherent in this question. All that we want to see now is that action takes place before there is another reason for another debate in this Chamber, triggered by an even greater tragedy.
I have a constituency interest in this matter. The tip of my constituency in North Wales is 15 miles away from the location of the"Christos Bitas"incident. The prevailing winds would most certainly have brought all the oil to the beautiful coast there, to places such as Abersoch, Cricieth and Nefyn, had the wind and weather not been remarkably lenient and had those responsible not acted very quickly in this instance and avoided a major tragedy.
Points have been made from both sides of the House about what needs to be done. The emphasis has been on prevention and avoidance, rather than on anything else. I take up a point made by a fellow Welshman, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). He mentioned that much of the pollution comes from the bits and pieces which are very often deliberately thrown into our seas. I am told that of the 6 million tons of oil that is disposed of in the sea every year. 1 million tons comes from the deliberate washing out of tanks—one-sixth.
That is a major cause of pollution. It caused a serious problem in my own county of Gwynedd two years ago. Oil was washed ashore along all the beaches on a stretch of the coast on every day for a month and this went on intermittently from April through to the following January. It was not possible to trace the origins of that oil because some of it had decomposed since being dumped at sea. It cost the county council £30.000


to clear up the mess caused by that oil. That is a minor example of the type of thing that occurs time after time. It is the other side of the coin from the three major incidents that we have been debating and have in mind at present.
The avoidance of pollution, as seems to be agreed by everyone present, should be initiated, first, by a more stringent definition, if necessary, of the channels along which tankers should move. There should be a restriction to keep tankers away from coasts, except when they are berthing. There should be greater use of pilots and there should, if necessary, be levies on the oil companies to pay for this.
Representations have been made by many bodies in this regard. In passing, I refer to the ACC, which has been dealing with my county council on this issue. Many other bodies have been pressing in the same direction. There seems to be agreement on the action needed.
There certainly needs to be a tightening of the routines for washing out, which causes so much of the difficulty. There needs to be tighter control on the ships themselves, both on the quality of the ships and on the information that is available about them and their cargoes. Paragraph 63 of the report published this morning refers to that matter. It says that information should be available on all the ships and on all cargoes carried by ships, and that it should be readily available for immediate action to be taken. There appears to be a need also for a greater standard of navigational aids.
However, having done our best to prevent these disasters occurring, we need also to upgrade the facilities available for fighting pollution at sea. A suggestion has been put forward by my own county about having tugs strategically located around the coastline, with the proper equipment available on 24-hour call, and thus avoid having to hunt around as soon as a tragedy occurs to find out where this or that item is located.
We have seen the report published this morning of the intention to have certain locations where equipment and facilities will be available. We should like to know where these locations will be and whether they will be frequent enough to be able

to respond very quickly, because time is of the essence in this problem.
As we have heard, we need greater research facilities to find better ways of disposing of oil at sea and to study the long-term effects on the environment and on marine life of some of the substances used to clear up the oil. We need sites for depositing oil that has been spilled. We need ports to which we can take any stricken tankers which are recovered.
The third aspect of the matter is the cost. I have already referred to the question of making sure that the major part of the bill goes to those who, as the hon. Member for Ealing, North said, cause the pollution—"Let the polluter pay ". But there are other aspects. From the point of view of county councils, why should authorities with long coastlines have to deal with a major cost such as this—I have referred to a minor incident costing £30,000—when the pollution is totally outside their control? Very often the cost lands on authorities which have fewer resources to deal with the problem.
Following the 1969 international convention there is an agreement and it can be applied reasonably easily for dealing with the major disasters. They can be sorted out, as the Minister mentioned. But what about the pollution that continues from day to day and from month to month? How can we ensure that adequate resources are available to local authorities to deal with that problem and make sure that when money is available it comes through as quickly as possible?
The danger that we are facing is that unless there is early international co-operation on a multilateral basis, countries will go off on their own course of action. We can understand why people are likely to take action on their own. We ourselves shall be tempted into that course. It would be much more desirable to get a multilateral agreement, if possible, at an early date, because that could overcome so many of the problems that we would set for ourselves if we all took separate action.
In the last quarter of the twentieth century it is totally unacceptable that we should still be polluting our environment in the way that we are doing. I say that not only because of the beauty of our coastline but because the sea is the future


source of much of the food and other resources that we shall need. We shall be acting very irresponsibly unless we regard this as a major problem and take those necessary steps which everyone in the House can recognise but which so far have not been acted upon by those in power.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I had the privilege of sitting as a member of the Select Committee which examined the"Eleni V"accident. I am sure the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that I think it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that the Government were running behind the problem of tanker accidents. One thing that I say in mitigation of the present Government is that I think I would be saying the same thing about the Government if my own party was in power. I do not see any realism attached to the problems surrounding this country and the dangers facing Britain. In running behind the problem today, the present Government are merely exhibiting the propensity of their predecessors over the past 30 years.
That said, however, I hope that the Government will be willing to encourage the inherent and necessary questioning in Government laboratories of the problems which arise around our country and how to challenge and solve them. This is something on which a Government can and must give leadership. In our inquiry, it was not apparent that that leadership existed.
I wish every piece of good luck to the gallant admiral who is taking up his supremo post. He will need every bit of luck that he can get hold of, because he will first have to clear away a whole slick in Whitehall. He is entering a difficult situation, with a backlog of problems which ought to have been disposed of long ago.
I do not think that tonight we want to go over the past. Instead, we want to look to the future. I should like to put forward one or two ideas of my own which arise from the hearings that we had in relation to the"Eleni V"accident and from other areas where I had the opportunity of working in engineering. I do so to try to suggest how we can face the realities of the enormous problems of tanker control and how we can solve the problem of accidents.
My first point relates to design. The Minister will not be surprised if I harp on the merits of the aircraft industry. The International Civil Aviation Organisation has its parallel in the other United Nations' authority—the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation. Both organisations have developed over the last 30 years or so. I should like to see the technology and knowledge of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, with which the Minister is familiar, being used to ensure that the mandatory design requirements for future tankers and the operating standards of present tankers meet the safety requirements which is expected by the people of this country. I do not see why we should not act unilaterally if we want to, because someone has to take the initiative. The French have taken"gunboat"diplomacy, perhaps we can take"drawing board"diplomacy. We ought to do something rather than just sit around and wait for the next accident.
I have been harping on my second point for many years, both from Hastings as a coastal constituency and from my air transport industry experience. It is that we ought to have a positive sea traffic control system for all vessels passing through busy seaways. In the English Channel, 2,000 vessels pass through the Straits of Dover every 24 hours. It is the world's busiest seaway. If one tried to operate air traffic on the same scale, one would not put the command in the hands of the pilot of the aircraft. Rather, one would put the command in the hands of the air traffic controllers. As captain of the aircraft, a pilot is ultimately responsible for the safety of his passengers. That is quite right. But his directions are dictated by the requirement to separate him from every other aircraft in his vicinity. He is not allowed to make any manoeuvre over the English Channel which would be anything other than in the best interests of his own safety and that of his passengers and other aircraft operating anywhere in the vicinity. I do not see why ship captains should in any way be exempt from such a requirement.
That means that equipment must be on board which, if necessary, can give the captains complete automatic control of their operations. In other words, they would select a certain course and would be directed, both in distance and in time.


in carrying out their manoeuvres. There is nothing unusual about this. The sea captains of the past laid down the rules of navigation for the air, but I think that the time has come to reverse the role so that sea captains can learn from the captains in the air.
As the Minister will remember, I put down a number of Questions about the cleaning out of oil tankers in harbour. I was told how difficult it was to deal with the problem. Indeed—this is no reflection on the Minister—that seems to be the general reaction from Whitehall. The attitude seems to be"It is all rather too difficult to do. Far better to let them clean out at sea"I believe that in the case of the"Christos Bitas"radar plots showed other oil tankers moving into the"Christos Bitas"area to clean out their tanks so that they could not be accused of spilling the oil.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. Gentleman will know of an initiative that we took at IMCO to encourage the crude oil washing procedure, and that"load on top"was itself something which the British Government encouraged. Those are two definitive courses that we have pursued.

Mr. Warren: After the many parliamentary Questions that I have put down I am delighted to hear the Minister tell me that he has taken action and I give him full credit for the initiative that he has taken.
But let us be quite clear about it the next big accident will happen. We might as well face the probability as being a piece of mathematical certainty rather than a question. From the many letters that I have received—and I am sure that other hon. Members have received similar correspondence—about what to do in the event of an accident, it is clear that a lot of bright ideas have for too many years been wasted on Whitehall. I have sheaves of letters from people who have written saying"Look at what Mr. Mulley, or someone else from a Government in times past, said about suggestions which were put forward when they held positions of responsibility in various Ministries ". I believe that the Government must have a system which examines ideas as they come in. As the

Minister said, we have at the moment no solutions to the problem of oil separation from the sea. But someone will emerge with the right idea. There is a Frank Whittle somewhere in the world —I hope that he is British—who will find the way to solve this problem.
Two things spring immediately to mind from the correspondence that I have received. One is that we ought to have sea rescue tankers which can immediately and quickly get to the scene and pump out oil. The other is that there should he a mandatory requirement that valves are on top of the decks of tankers so that when they list one can pump straight out rather than having to worry about the list. Those are two bright ideas which have been discarded by Government, not necessarily the Government of the day.
I believe that insurance levels are too low. One has only to look at the way in which the French are suing the carriers in the"Amoco Cadiz"incident in the United States courts. Something must be done about this at an international level, but I believe that the French are really taking it a little too far.
With regard to the"Eleni V ", I understand that the councils in East Anglia have still not been paid. I hope that the Minister will be able to look into this problem.
The Minister knows all the details of the"Eleni V"accident. One of my correspondents hopes that I and other Members of Parliament will not be"mugged ", as he has been in the past, by officials of the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade or the Department of Industry. It is clear that speed is of the essence in dealing with these accidents. I am sure the Minister will not be surprised to know that in the case of the"Eleni V"accident, which happened on 6th May 1978, with the wreck being blown up on 30th May 1978, the Waveney district council did not hear from the Government chemist until 2nd August about the type of oil in the tanker, which had already been blown up and had polluted the council's beaches. Surely it is possible to do something more rapidly than that.
Warren Spring laboratory was responsible for the anaysis of that oil, but the Suffolk county oil pollution officer has


never heard from it. I am sure that the Minister will wish to look at this problem of the lack of communication so that we do not continue to have simple dispersant conditions held up for failure of a simple, straightforward telephone call, even if it is reverse charge.
I know that separation techniques present the most difficult problem of the lot. There are hundreds of ideas floating around. I know that the Minister will be aware of the Question which I put to his colleague in the Department of Industry last week, in which I asked why the Marine Technology Requirements Board has no funding requirements over the next two years to try to solve this problem, particularly as it relates to heavy fuel oil which was the substance in the"Eleni V"accident.
We have tremendous problems around our coastline. I still believe that we are just waiting for the next accident to happen. I just hope that it is not as terrible as I think it can be.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren), with his engineering and acute political back-

ground, made a number of points which the Minister would be wise to follow. It was particularly interesting when he suggested that we should follow the analogy of the aviation industry and pinpoint the responsibility for control of the movement of tankers away from the skippers to some form of centralised control, certainly around our coasts.
We start with the obvious assumption that oil has brought great benefits to our community. But it brings great hazards, too, as we have heard today. The Secretary of State pointed out that the tragic death of two divers on Saturday was the latest human tragedy as a by-product of the oil industry. But if the impetus for the development of the economic benefits of oil has come from the companies, they have unfortunately left Governments to develop the facilities to provide the cures and deal with the environmental hazards which are the inevitable side effects of oil exploration and exploitation—
It being Seven o'clock. and there being Private Business set down by The CHAIR-MAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business) further Proceeding-stood postponed.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (SELBY) BILL (By Order)

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill seeks to authorise the British Railways Board to divert its east coast main line around the western edge of the Barnsley coal seam, so that the coal under the existing main line may be extracted when the Selby coalfield is developed.
If the diversion is not built the National Coal Board and the nation will lose coal to the value of £800 million. There is general agreement that the main line should be diverted. The argument has been about which diversion is most suitable and especially about the respective merits of the Colton extension and the Sherburn deviation.
The British Railway Board's proposal is for the Colton extension—a new line constructed from a point about four miles south of Selby, going roughly northwest and then north to join the present Leeds to York line about five miles from York, near Colton. This route, preferred by the British Railways Board, is the least costly. It will cost £35·5 million, compared with £38 million for the Sherburn deviation, and it does not sterilise any workable coal or gypsum. The Sherburn deviation sterilises 5 million tons of workable coal and 2 million tons of gypsum.
The Colton extension is 2¼ miles shorter and would save £33,000 a year in fuel costs compared with Sherburn. The board's route has less effect on residential properties. No houses would have to be demolished along the new route. On the other hand, the Sherburn deviation would greatly increase the rail traffic passing through or near to the populated areas of Sherburn in Elmet, Church Fenton, Ulleskelf, and Bolton Percy. The proposed route would require 33 yards of land between the railway fences except at the southern end where the width between fences would be 44 yards. It is estimated that no more than 250 acres of land would be required for the diversion. None of this land would be grade 1—almost all is grade 2 or 3, and some of it is grade 4.
Inter-city trains will no longer stop at Selby when the present line from Selby to York closes. However, Selby will continue to be served by the Leeds-Hull line and local services from Selby to Doncaster and York which will connect with inter-city services.
The board will try to satisfy the railway requirements of Selby and services will be designed to give the best possible connections with main line trains from York and Doncaster.
The majority of rail travellers using Selby are those travelling to or arriving from the North. Therefore the British Railway Board proposes that the Selby-York service will be as frequent as the present one. The Selby-Doncaster service will match demand.
The Bill was given a Second Reading by 63 votes to six and was referred to Committee. There was no petitioner against it. The Committee sat for a whole day giving close scrutiny to the board's proposals. Detailed evidence was given by the board, none of which was challenged by the Committee, and the Committee accepted both the need for the diversion and the route chosen by the board.
The board has conferred widely with local interests. Its officers have had one or more meetings to discuss the proposals with the North Yorkshire county council, the Selby district council, British Gypsum, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the British Waterways Board, the Yorkshire water authority, Ryther parish council, the Department of Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Forestry Commission, the Yorkshire Electricity Board, the Hambleton parish council, Selby Internal Drainage Board, Messrs. Nicholsons, estate agents of York, the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), local farmers, Messrs. Miles, Penty, Stroud, Mills, Houseman, Hepplestone and others.
In addition, a meeting was held on 7th January 1977 with several landowners. The meeting was chaired by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash. A public meeting with representatives of the North Yorkshire county council, the Selby district council, the NFU and the Country Landowners Association was


held on 4th November 1977 and a public exhibition was put on at five towns or villages between 12th and 20th December 1977.
It is 12 months since the Bill was deposited and it is in the national interest that it makes as much progress as possible before the Christmas Recess in order that it may then proceed through its remaining stages next year. This will enable the board to start the construction. I hope that the House will allow me to deal with any specific points. I urge the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: I have no intention of delaying the House longer than is necessary to make a number of fairly brief points on behalf of the North Yorkshire county council, the Selby district council, and the National Farmers Union, in conjunction with the Country Landowners Association. These are all points that these bodies have asked me to make. I make them in the context of the British Railways Board's proposal for the diversion as it now stands. I shall not enter into a general debate on the optional routes which may or may not arise. In addressing myself to the route as it is now proposed, I do not necessarily prejudice the attempts in another place to take this matter further.
The opposition that I have presented up to now has been responsible and constructive. I have made no attempt to prevent the carry-over of the Bill from the last Session to the present Session or to cause it to lapse, which would have been possible at the end of last Session.
I want to be sure that we have the opportunity to continue to consider the substantial points which arise affecting local interests. I hope that the promoters of the Bill will demonstrate the same constructive and helpful attitude towards the difficulties that I shall raise, as I have shown towards the Bill.
A code of practice is being negotiated between British Rail and the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association. I should like the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) and the British Rail authorities to consider with much more sympathy the proposition that the board should accept some extra-legal responsibility for

the acts and omissions of contractors engaged in work on land between Selby and York, which includes land owned by my farming community. I make the plea on behalf of individual farmers who will be affected by the works. It is not reasonable to expect busy working farmers to chase around identifying, locating and communicating with individual contractors or sub-contractors employed by British Rail when they damage property, go bankrupt or otherwise affect the interests of farmers on whose land they are working.
British Rail is employing the contractors and using compulsory purchase orders to place them on my constituents' land. The board should accordingly accept full responsibility for the acts and omissions of its contractors so that if damage is done, an individual farmer will not have to chase after an elusive, bankrupt contractor, but can have recourse direct to British Rail.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that British Rail should be as generous as the National Coal Board with compensation?

Mr. Alison: By the sort of magical insight that is characteristic of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts), he has precisely anticipated my next point. The hon. Gentleman knows well the attitude and philosophy of the NCB, which will also be engaged in physical work in my constituency. The board has an exemplary record of compensation arrangements which are acknowledged to be well in excess of legal requirements. Its publication"Compensation for Mining Subsidence Damage"says:
 The Board…recognise, nevertheless, that damage for which they have no legal liability is sometimes caused and may result in hardship to the individuals affected. The Board wish to prevent hardship and they are willing also to pay compensation in certain other cases in which they have no legal liability.
That exemplary attitude towards extralegal liability characterises the NCB and it is entirely proper that the British Railways Board should adopt it as its guiding philosophy in negotiations over the code of practice. Let British Rail do locally what the NCB does nationally and locally and be fair, flexible and helpful. My farming constituents will then be more


than content. I hope that in the forthcoming meeting with the NFU and the CLA, British Rail will make a forthright declaration of intent to be at least as generous as is the National Coal Board.
The next aspect with which I wish to deal concerns noise levels affecting certain householders whose property adjoins the existing railway network and who will be affected by the diversion. Representations have been made to me by the Selby district council. I am indebted particularly to Mr. Nevil Parkinson, of the council, who has helped by briefing me on a somewhat complex subject.
I start by reminding the House that there is statutory provision under the relevant Road Traffic Act that if the noise level of road vehicles exceeds a certain technically specified level, compensation and help from public funds is available to householders to enable them to instal double glazing or some other appropriate method of soundproofing. The level of eligible noise of road traffic is reached at a point expressed by the technical formula 68dBa L10. That is 68 decibels over an average hour for 24 hours. If that level is exceeded by road traffic, householders become eligible for compensation.
I understand that the technical officers of Selby district council have devised a formula which applies to the noise of rail movements an equivalent measurement to the road noise level. The new measurement is expressed by the formula 65 LEQ. That is the equivalent in rail noise terms to the 68dBa of road noise.
The new rail noise formula has already been reached by the existing rail traffic on the Leeds and Sheffield to York railway line in the vicinity of Colton to Copmanthorpe near York, in my constituency. If the existing noise level is on the brink of eligibility for compensation, I ask the House and the British Rail authorities to consider what will happen when the east coast mainline traffic is, as a result of the Bill, switched on to the existing network. It will mean an extra 200 rail movements every 24 hours and will include the new 125 m.p.h. high-speed trains which have at each end of the vehicle formation two diesel units, which emit a piercing scream that could awaken or give nightmares to anyone who heard it during the night.
However, I understand that British Rail is still disputing whether the noise level is unacceptable. I beg it to make the same sort of imaginative, constructive gesture towards the 200 or more property owners whose homes lie along the track. I beg it to take the initiative in accepting that there will be an unacceptable level of noise as a result of the diversion, and to make the appropriate provision for compensation or for the installation of sound proofing.
I think that the Minister will agree that the railway authorities have got off lightly in respect of the public aspects of the proposal. There has not been a railway diversion or construction on the scale of that proposed for at least the past 40 or 50 years, and the upheaval is at least equivalent to that of a motorway construction of equivalent length. If the latter had been envisaged, there would have been a massive public inquiry, and it certainly would have been necessary for the Minister to make a public statement about compensation for noise levels. I hope that in spite of the present procedure there will be appropriate compensation.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Which section of the Colton extension that the hon. Gentleman is speaking about would be loaded with so much more traffic and high-speed trains? The hon. Gentleman's proposal on Second Reading, of the Sherburn deviation, would have resulted in more noise nuisance, because there is a great deal of property near that route. As the hon. Gentleman himself said in our previous debate, British Rail wants a brand-new railway through the grass fields. No one in the grass fields will be disturbed—except, possibly, cows.

Mr. Alison: It is clear from the hon. Gentleman's intervention that he has come into this complicated story a little too late to follow carefully the details of what is proposed. Whether or not the Sher-burn deviation were adopted, we are talking about a section of line north of the river Ouse which either the Sherburn deviation or the British Rail proposals would have fed into. We are talking about a section between Colton and Copmanthorpe, near York, which will be affected whether the Sherburn deviation or the British Rail proposal is followed.
On to that section of line it is proposed to funnel, in addition to the existing Leeds and Sheffield to York and Scotland traffic already travelling along it, the whole of the East Coast mainline King's Cross to Scotland traffic, an extra 200 movements a day affecting existing properties built close to the railway line. It will unquestionably produce a massive increase in the noise level, which I believe will grossly exceed that considered in road traffic terms to be the acceptable level before sound proofing is installed. I very much hope that the Minister and the authorities will sympathetically consider the residents on that stretch of line, particularly as the residents will have high-speed trains going past.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the increased noise resulting from 200 extra movements, one must point out that the trains will not all be going by together but will pass at separate times. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the noise will be merely that of the high-speed trains or that there will be more noise over 24 hours? Exactly what is his point?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is also beginning to take an intelligent interest, if he has not done so already. His question enabled me to remind him that road vehicles have the similar peculiar phenomenon of not going by continuously in a steady stream but of passing in an interrupted series of movements. It has been possible to analyse in respect of the movements of road vehicles the average level of noise per hour over 24 hours, and in respect of those movements and that level of noise to reach the conclusion that if the noise exceeds 68 dBa there should be payment of compensation from public funds to householders within a certain proximity who are affected by it.
In principle there is no difference between a road movement and a rail movement. With high-speed trains in particular, but also with the huge increase in volume of traffic on the line, I believe that there will be exactly the same kind of repercussions on local householders as if it were a motorway. That the noise is not automatically unacceptable in railway terms is only because there has not been a railway deviation of this kind for nearly half a century.
The Greater London Council already provides a standard level of compensa-

tion for those affected by rail noise in the London area. We are asking simply that British Rail should sensitively consider the same practice in respect of what will happen to the villages of Copmanthorpe and Colton.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the comparative costs and environmental aspects of road as opposed to rail. The points that he has just made relate to what will happen in the light of the diversion and the increased volume of rail traffic, but have any figures been worked out for the increase in road traffic if there were a road service instead, allowing for the development of the potential of the Selby coalfield and the increased volume of traffic that that would obviously involve?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman, a neighbour of mine, has slightly missed the point. If road traffic were substituted for rail traffic, and we had a motorway rather than a railway line across this bit of the Vale of York, there would automatically, under the existing statutory provisions, be compensation for the noise level involved, if it reached or exceeded the formula figure that I have already quoted. Therefore, if it were a road link I should not have to be detaining the House in making a plea for special compensation in respect of noise. It is only because no such formula has been devised or applied to railway noise—though that noise will be considerable—that I am asking British Rail to take an initiative to meet the special needs.
I am extremely anxious that the draft undertaking in preparation between British Rail and the North Yorkshire county council should be brought to a rapid and agreed conclusion, so that further petitioning in another place by the county council need not be necessary. It is clearly desirable that two public bodies such as British Rail and a major county council should be able to sort out matters of common interest privately in a constructive way without having to have recourse to costly petitioning procedures.
I very much hope that in the light of the plea made by the hon. Member for Preston, North on behalf of British Rail we shall hustle the Bill through, to get it off the House of Commons stocks before Christmas. I hope that British


Rail will play its part, particularly in the matter of the draft undertaking, which has a major impact on some of the issues that the county council raised in its original petition—matters to do with the new road that may be required, the provision of footpaths and new bridges, the reinstatement of land, and so on.
These matters have not yet been finalised between the two authorities. The county council is impatient to see them brought to an agreed conclusion as soon as possible. I ask the hon. Gentleman to press British Rail to lose no time in reaching agreement with the county council, so that further petitioning in the House of Lords may not be necessary.

7.29 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I shall not detain the House for more than a couple of minutes, but I should like at this point to restate the Government's position on the Bill.
I believe that the need to divert the east coast main line was accepted on Second Reading, and the Bill has now been examined and approved by a Committee of the House. I think that it will be helpful if I remind the House that the Government fully support the principle underlying the Bill, on the ground that it is in the national interest to develop the Selby coalfield to its full economic potential. That requires a diversion of the east coast line.
The facts speak for themselves. The Select Committee examining the Bill was given a report by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The report explained that there were two factors which, taken together, made the situation at Selby different from that at other coalfields crossed by railway lines.
First, the existing geological conditions and the intensity of mining necessary for the economic development of the mine would cause settlement problems. In the opinion of the board's experts, they would make it unsafe to run a modern main line railway over the coalfield.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) mentioned the economic considerations. If

there were no diversion, a pillar of coal approximately a mile wide would have to be left unworked. I understand that the Department of Energy estimates that the value of the coal sterilised thereby would be nearly £800 million at present prices. This would be nearly 15 per cent. of the exploitable reserves of the coalfield, which is a vital element in the plans of the National Coal Board and in meeting the nation's future energy requirements.
Turning to the actual alignment of the diversion, as I made clear on Second Reading this is a matter primarily for the sponsors of the Bill, as are the other details with which the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) dealt. However, they have consulted widely in the course of outlining all the various alternatives, and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North elaborated on the extent to which there had been consultations.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash said that British Railways had got away lightly and I understand the thinking behind his comment and the comparison which he made with an inquiry into a motorway alternative, for example. None the less, I think he will concede that British Railways have gone out of their way to consult within the framework laid down in this case, for example, by making much more information available at the Committee stage than would have been necessary if they had followed the strict letter of the law. I think that they have gone out of their way to make everything as plain as can be so that there are no facts which people do not know.
If there were any delay in passing the Bill, it would have a serious effect on British Railways' plans for the construction of the diversion line and, therefore, on the plans of the National Coal Board for exploiting the coal reserves. I am told that mining is scheduled to start within half a mile of the existing east coast main line by late 1983. I also understand that even on present plans, assuming that Parliament approves the Bill, British Railways do not expect the diversion line to be fully operational until shortly before that. For these reasons alone, therefore, I urge the House to give the Bill a Third reading.

Mr. Alison: Before the Minister s sits down, can he bring himself, even tentatively, to comment sympathetically on the interplay between noise levels on roads and railway noise?

Mr. Horam: Naturally, the hon. Member's remarks will be given attention by the sponsors of the Bill. There are no powers equivalent to the powers relating to noise resulting from motorway traffic. None the less, I am sure that the hon. Member's comments will be taken into account by British Railways.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: We must all welcome the fact that this is the first major building of a new railway line for some 50 years, and it is to be hoped that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and his colleagues will bear in mind the effect that this will have on farms, on existing houses and on the whole area through which it passes. This is important. These are human factors and matters which affect individuals, and it is extremely difficult for anyone to put himself into their position unless he lives alongside a railway. But I am certain that, having offered the information to my hon. Friend, through him British Railways will take note of the fact that adequate compensation has been offered in past years by the National Coal Board and other nationalised industries and that they will be no less generous.
If I may put out one slight feeler about it, I hope that whilst British Railways are being generous they will bear in mind that they are dealing with public money vis-à-vis public expenditure. I am sure that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) will not want to see too much of that thrown about, otherwise he may come to grief with the Leader of the Opposition.
I hope that the Bill gets the blessing of the House, because it is extremely important. On the King's Cross to Newcastle east coast main line services, there have been vast improvements. It is important for these services that the loop is completed. The 125 service at present runs practically like clockwork. It is on time, the trains are full, and it is even difficult to find vacant seats in the first-class accommodation these days. This is tribute to the service, and it is to be

hoped that it will continue. In the absence of getting permission for the proposed diversion, there will be a slowing down of the service, with speed restrictions, and when the mine begins to develop down will go the railway line and we shall meet the same old difficulty. However, we hope that if these works take place we shall be able to maintain a first-class service not only with the 125 but also with the high-speed trains expected to come into service in future years.
I am a little disturbed by clause 10, and I speak now wearing my ex-British Railways hat. I hope that hon. Members whose constituencies are involved will ensure that if transport users' consultative committees are asked not to take action when train services are withdrawn north of Selby, some provision will be made for representations to be made on behalf of those who normally use the services and thereby ensure that they are not withdrawn from them.
This is a good Bill. We are far removed from the days when we were closing down railways. Today, we are talking about improving them and making sure that they carry on the upward movement that they have been making in recent years. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third reading and that, when it goes to another place, a reasonable attitude will be adopted towards it.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). He is right to take up the cudgels on behalf of his constituents. However, basically he is in favour of the Bill. Many of us live close to opencast mining and sand and gravel workings and, whether we like them or not, we have to live with them. Having heard the hon. Member for Barkston Ash make his representations against this proposal, I can understand his feelings.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) that the Bill should go through expeditiously. There has been a tremendous amount of co-operation between the National Coal Board and British Railways, and I am convinced that all the cooperation which British Railways have wanted and which the NCB has wanted has been forthcoming.
I well understand the feelings of the people of Selby. They were against the working of the coal from the very beginning. However, I am receiving petitions from my constituents about the working of opencast coal. If the country needs it, it has to be. I am sure that if we wanted sand and gravel and it was discovered in Hyde Park, it would be worked. If the Bill is not passed, it will mean thousands of tons of coal being sterilised. We cannot afford to do that. Therefore, all the arguments put forward against the scheme must be discounted.
I want to make one comment on compensation. I am with the hon. Member for Barkston Ash about it. If people suffer unduly, they should be compensated adequately. The message should go out from this Chamber that we are in favour of that. But whereas possibly the National Coal Board has been generous in many instances, it must be understood that it is involved in a productive industry whereas British Railways operate a service industry and have not the same resilience as the National Coal Board. However, I am sure that every hon. Member agrees that if any damage or harm is done, sensible and reasonable compensation must be given.
Paragraph 20 of the promoters' statement says that since the Bill passed its Committee stage in May the board has been in negotiation with the local councils, the water authorities and the farmers. They are still talking on these issues. There is no reason why they should not go on talking if they have not reached some settlement. Everyone, including farmers and landowners, has been brought into the discussions. They have been exceedingly tolerant. There is no reason why they should not go on talking until everything is finalised. We want to see justice done. We all appreciate that this railway line has to come whether one likes it or not. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South pointed out the need for maintaining the 125 train from the north to Kings Cross.
We also need the coal. It is the best coal in Europe. It will last a long time. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash but the issue is clear. I would make a final plea. I hope that we can reach finality with a good measure of agreement. I hope that

all those contentious points that are still outstanding can be overcome. I should like to underline again that I want to see fair compensation and consideration for all concerned.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: With the leave of the House I shall reply. I am sure that British Rail will note the remarks of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). The Bill is concerned with the principle of the diversion of main line trains. Construction and design details and a host of other detailed matters relevant to the construction of a new railway, while very important, as the board admits, are secondary to establishing the principle that a diversion is needed and that it should be constructed along the route proposed by the board. Until that principle has been established, it is premature to go into other details.
The Bill incorporates most of the provisions of the Railway Clauses (Consolidation) Act 1845. Let us remember 1845. This House was the first Chamber ever to deal with the construction of the railways. At that time it was full of landowners and representatives of farmers. The House of Lords, too, was controlled by landowners. It is unlikely that any legislation anywhere in the world was more designed to protect landowners than that Act. We are still working on the basis of the Act, which contains a comprehensive code of provisions relating to the construction of railways, including safeguards for owners and occupiers of properties across which the new railway will pass.
Section 68 of the Act imposes a continuing obligation on the board to provide and maintain accommodation works for the benefit of such persons. These works include, for example, bridges over the railway to connect severed land, new roadways or tracks leading to such bridges, the provision of gates and trespass-proof fencing along the railway boundary, the construction of culverts, drains or tunnels for the drainage of water and the provision of new watering places for cattle. Further, until accommodation bridges and roads have been constructed, the owners, lessees and occupiers of land that will be severed by the railway will be entitled, by virtue of section 73 of the Act, to cross the site of the railway to get to their land. Thus,


the board will have to complete these accommodation works before the railway is opened for use.
The Bill also applies the provisions of part I of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, which deals with the manner in which land required for the railways is to be acquired. That Act includes safeguards to ensure that owners are not left with small parcels of severed land and makes provision for compensation to be paid to persons whose lands are injuriously affected by the construction of the works. The Land Compensation Act 1961, with its code for determining compensation, will also apply.
In view of the statutory obligations in respect of accommodation works that will be imposed on the board if the board's proposals for diverting the main line are sanctioned, and the other statutory safeguards referred to, it is submitted that the interests of the landowners are already well catered for. In any case, it would have been an extremely time-consuming and onerous task to consult nearly 200 owners, lessees and occupiers of land along the route, some of whom would inevitably have different or opposing views or requirements, before the deposit of the Bill to ascertain detailed requirements regarding the provision of accommodation works. It is unlikely that in any other country in the world one would have as many safeguards as in this country when a new railway is built. We are still in the nineteenth century in terms of safety.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has no doubt been giving the House an extremely relevant list of statutory provisions going back to the 1840s. I hope that he will not overlook the fact that the main part of my speech was devoted to asking the authorities to consider two special measures that lie outside existing legal requirements in respect of responsibility for acts and omissions and in respect of extra levels of noise. It is because existing legislation does not make provision for these matters that I hope the hon. Gentleman will make representations to the authorities.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is asking British Rail to do something which is not required of any other authority, including those responsible for motorways. In making his comparison, he

was comparing dissimilar things. He was comparing an existing line with increased traffic and a new motorway. What he should do, if he is to compare like with like, is to compare a new motorway with a new railway line and an existing railway line with an existing road.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically legalistic. He must appreciate that society moves forward with enhanced consciousness and certain disadvantages from which individuals or the body politic may suffer. Noise level is a new phenomenon which it is proper to take into account.

Mr. Atkins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but we have to compare the existing line, with increased traffic, and existing roads. I shall give an example. My parents' house is in Buttrells Road, Barry. Since less traffic has been carried by the railway, the docks traffic travelling up Buttrells Road has become so heavy that it has undermined the foundations of the house and juggernaut lorries keep my mother awake throughout the night. Crockery has fallen off the mantelpiece and cracks have appeared in the structure, but there is not an atom of compensation, because the road is an old one. Traffic is increasing all the time on this road, as it is on other roads.
One might argue that this new, more efficient line could take traffic off the road and the majority of constituents would probably benefit from it, but one must not forget that this is creating a precedent that I would like to see established on existing roads. Compensation from British Rail because of increased traffic on an existing railway line is a principle that the hon. Gentleman wants established on this two or three miles of track. Although he would make it longer if he had had his way, only two or three miles of traffic are involved. If one were to pay the people who were disturbed on this length of track because of the increase in traffic noise one would create a precedent that would have to apply to every railway line in the country.

Mr. Adley: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving way so frequently, and I am sorry to interrupt him again. There is a precedent involving the compensation arrangements between the GLC and


British Rail for certain railway lines in London.

Mr. Atkins: That shows how generous British Rail is. British Rail is the favourite Aunt Sally of many hon. Members who always demand that British Rail should make a profit. When a subsidy is necessary for social, environmental or other reasons, hon. Members sneer and say that it is time that we made it pay its way. The burden that some wish to apply to British Rail could grow immeasurably.
Let us examine the noise levels. The route proposed by British Rail will cause the least noise disturbance, because most of it runs through green fields. Else where, even on the older section with which it will merge, only two or three properties are involved. They are three old railway cottages. One of them is empty, another is to be pulled down, and only the third is inhabited.
I refer to a foreword by the chief civil engineer of the British Railways Board research and development division which states:
 All existing properties adjacent to the new line between Templehurst and Colton are outside this noise contour ".
That was referred to in the preceding paragraph. The foreword states:
 Only two properties are close to the contour. The Railway Board do not accept, however, that the 65 aba 24 hour LEQ noise contour has any special significance in relation to railways and, in particular they do not accept that it could he considered as an appropriate contour to determine whether there should be any obligation to execute protective works to minimise the effects of noise. The Railways Board opinion is that their obligations in respect of railway noise should he no more onerous than those placed upon highways authorities, taking into account residents' relative acceptance of road traffic noise and noise from trains.
In general the environmental lobby welcomes railways because they are less disturbing to the community than is road traffic.
The Colton extension, which is favoured by British Rail in contrast to the Sherburn deviation which is favoured by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), is a low-level line. A low-level line creates less noise than a high-level line. British Rail had that in mind when it decided on the preferred route.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash mentioned high speed trains. Those trains might be speedier, but they are no more noisy than the older trains. The high speed trains are lighter and quieter.

Mr. Alison: The high speed trains are twice as noisy because they have two engines, one at each end.

Mr. Atkins: The weight matters most. I travel frequently on the high-speed trains between Cardiff and Paddington. I have heard them when I have been on stations and elsewhere. I assure the hon. Member that they are much quieter than the main line electric trains between Glasgow and Euston. We shall have to differ on that matter.
Some people sneer at speed, and the speed at which we wish to pass the Bill. The Bill was deposited a year ago. It has not gone through the House speedily so far. We should all remember the need for national resources to be used efficiently. In order to be efficient we must proceed quickly with this railway line and with the development of the Selby coalfield.
In 20 years we shall be desperately short of energy. It is in our interests to progress with that scheme. The country is also in crying need of development, which creates employment. This project could help unemployment in the North of England. I hope that we shall pass the Bill.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The question of blight was mentioned by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins). My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North does not have the argument in its right perspective. I can understand why people are upset by such developments. But my hon. Friend is so inured to the idea that British Rail should meet all the bills that he assumes that British Rail must meet that bill. In the ideal society the State would meet that bill.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I agree.

Mr. Skinner: There are many precedents for that, including the motorways. We all know of the gigantic road lobby which is financed by the big companies which make massive profits out of the


roads. But the railways are a State concern.
Many properties which are adjacent to the motorways have had to be double glazed or demolished because of the noise. Invariably that cost has been met by the State. That is despite the fact that the real profits from motorways go not to the State or to the motorist but to the multinational companies and other companies based in this country which make the products necessary to build roads and the other products which are related to driving on motorways.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport is gazing in my direction. I think that he is nodding his head and I assume that he agrees with me. I hope that he takes the matter into account. I do not despair of the argument made by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash about people being protected from planning blight.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend will remember that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) suggested that British Rail should meet the cost.

Mr. Skinner: That is why I thought it necessary to make that point. Precedents are made in respect of motorways and many other matters. Airports, which were mentioned at Question Time today, are another example of how safeguards are built in. I am not against that. It adds strength to the argument made by all NUR sponsored Members and others. Once it is established that the State has to meet costs which are over and above basic costs on the railways, who knows, we might advance even further so that the cost of maintaining the track is also met by the State.
It would be ideal if, with the first new line to be built for 50 years, certain of the maintenance costs were met by the State. That could set a precedent for many other costs to be removed from British Rail, which is apparently having to meet certain significant bills. Such a move would assist the workers on British Rail. They are always arguing for more money, over and above the 5 per cent. limit, notwithstanding what Sid Weighell may say. He says that they do not want more than 5 per cent., but I know differently. I travel on the railways every week, and I am clear in my mind that

the railwaymen do not want to be restricted to 5 per cent. So if these massive costs could be lifted from British Rail more money would be available for railwaymen's wages.
It is ironic that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash should have raised this issue. He does not realise what a trap he has laid for himself and for his right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. He is arguing in favour of allowing British Rail's costs to be cut substantially. Perhaps he will support me in seeking to start this new experiment in Selby, eventually extending it throughout the system.
There is, however, one aspect that might upset the hon. Member for Barkston Ash. I do not say this malevo-lently—

Mr. Adley: Perish the thought.

Mr. Skinner: I envisage several thousand miners and their families moving into the district which borders on and encroaches into Barkston Ash. The chemistry of that constituency will change.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should remember Ashfield. He can no longer take it for granted that miners vote Labour.

Mr. Skinner: I know quite a lot about Ashfield. That by-election occurred at a significant time. It was when the Government, unfortunately and wrongly, began cutting public expenditure in line with the hon. Gentleman's philosophy. For about 12 or 18 months the Government became mixed up with Tory philosophy. Under pressure from the Opposition the Government gave way. The net result was that Labour lost Ashfield. However, since then one or two of my hon. Friends have said to Ministers"Hey, remember Ashfield". The result has been seen in the last few weeks. We won Berwick and East Lothian, and we won two other seats in Scotland. We are making marginal improvements in England.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows Ashfield, but he obviously does not know Barkston Ash. The miners who will work in the new Selby coalfield will almost certainly come in large numbers from Peckfield,


Kippax and other such collieries in my constituency. I have a large number of miners in my constituency already, and many of them are looking forward to working in the better conditions in the Selby field. I am not expecting a great influx of new miners.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member may be right. Existing pits in his constituency may be closed, and I would be against that.
If this business is arranged as I would like, not only will Kippax remain open, but other pits will be saved from closure, too. There would be a growth in the industry. Selby would be an addition to what already exists. That would help to cut the dole queues. I have reservations, however, about the way this matter will be handled. If Selby were to be an addition, however, more miners and their families would move into the area.
Barkston Ash is currently a Tory seat, and an influx of more miners would have more than a marginal effect on the nature of the electorate there. I cannot ignore the fact that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash may be seeking a clean and decent way of opposing the Bill, bearing in mind that he is concerned about his seat. Of course, he denies that, and he has every right to do so. I do not say that what I have suggested is bound to be the case, but it crossed my mind that it might be.
The Conservatives are always against public expenditure in principle, except when it applies to their own patch, to their constituencies. I got the impression that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash —I think that he is anxious to leave—wanted a system that eventually would cost more in terms of public expenditure than would the proposition advanced in the Bill. Perhaps he will tell me if I am wrong.

Mr. Alison: My assumption is that the compensation which should be made available for those who would be affected by the extra noise that would be generated by the new railway service would be a proper charge upon public funds generally, including upon those who use the new train service regularly. It may be necessary to have a marginal increase in fares to finance that compensation. It would, however, be a proper offset against

the additional funds that will flow to British Rail through operating the trains. That would not necessarily involve extra expenditure. It would simply mean that the extra revenue flowing to British Rail from running the improved service should be used to meet the compensation.

Mr. Skinner: I did not realise that I would catch one as big as that.

Mr. Alison: May I make another point?

Mr. Skinner: Certainly.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman was quite right. I have another appointment to keep. I hope that no discourtesy will be implied if, in the course of what will obviously be a long and very interesting speech from him, I leave. I look forward to reading the rest of it in Hansard. Perhaps we may correspond if he makes a point to which I ought to reply.

Mr. Skinner: As long as it is only corresponding in the literary sense, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. There has been too much of that going on in this place lately, or so they tell me. I do not know, I only read the papers.
The hon. Gentleman is seeking, therefore, to spend a lot more money. I am not against that. I believe that one way of cutting the massive dole queues is to spend more, and in the way that I have already demonstrated. We could find ways and means of spending money, but I do not believe that we should spend it when the relationship between spending and efficiency is so unsatisfactory.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash is saying that although generally the Tory Party favours ultra-efficiency and cutting what is known by that dirty phrase"Government expenditure ", he wants to spend more money in the way that he has outlined. The Conservatives always refer to cutting Government expenditure and never to spending less on social services, housing, hospitals or welfare services. They want to cut back services that people need. Tonight we had an admission from the hon. Member for Barkston Ash that he wants to increase public expenditure. He does not want to increase the volume or efficiency of services for the working class. He wants to spend money willy-nilly in order to keep miners out of his constituency.
The Leader of the Opposition should have a word with him. It is not just the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) who is causing trouble. If the hon. Member for Barkston Ash represents Tory Back Benchers, the right hon. Lady has some real problems—not just with the opinion polls. Of course, the hon. Gentleman used to have a job on the Front Bench. Perhaps he is peeved. If there is another poll, who knows, he may get by inside the Tory Party.
It is interesting that even with this relatively small measure—I will explain later that in its own dimension it is important—we have had another example of Tory Back Benchers speaking against public expenditure generally but being in favour of it when it concerns their own purposes. Whenever this happens someone on the Labour Benches ought to get up and point out the irreconcilability of this approach. Ministers ought to do it more often than they do. We have had this welcome sign illustrating my point from the hon. Member for Barkston Ash.
I am prepared to play the devil's advocate on this issue because it is broad enough to be looked at from all sides. When I went to Ruskin College they said"Dennis, you must look at things in the round." I did not, but I mean to take the opportunity of doing so tonight. On this occasion I want to draw attention to the fact that this project is not necessarily the most wonderful vehicle in which to ride.
If Selby is developed along the lines proposed by the Coal Board, I can envisage many pits in and around the area being closed and the miners being transported into the Selby coalfield. Naturally, houses will be provided and some of the people will live in Barkston Ash. But, because of the current demand for coal, I can see that we would not increase total output. The same would apply to the Vale of Belvoir. We are not discussing that tonight. It will come to us much later. I am not in favour of the development of Selby if it means that, when completed, total output in the industry will remain at or around 100 million tons. That means that there will be a lot of pit closures in Yorkshire.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I am sure that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that we

hope to supply the Common Market with coal, too.

Mr. Skinner: I was coming round to that. I want all Ministers associated with these matters to look at Selby, this bright new jewel, in terms of doing everything which is encapsulated within the policies of the Labour Party. One such policy is to ensure that the coal industry increases total output. One of the ways in which that can be done is by ensuring that the economy is expanding. That means bringing down the present 12½per cent. minimum lending rate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I believe that the hon. Member has been waiting for some comment from the Chair. I am sure of it. I could read it in his face, in his eyes and in his delivery. May I remind him that we ought to be discussing the Third Reading of the British Railways (Selby) Bill?

Mr. Skinner: It is fair to put the point on the Third Reading of this important Bill that we must ensure that all the things which we desire are made clear within it to those who will take the final decision. This Bill means nothing if it is not discussed against the background of the coal industry. I give the Bill my full support. I want to see the railway project carried through. I want to see everything rushed through. I do not want the House of Lords to tamper with it. I want things to go through as quickly and easily as possible. However, I say that in the knowledge that the coal industry is suffering from a fall in demand. We must look at Selby in that context. A third of the total annual output is held in stocks, by power stations and elsewhere. A massive new coalfield at a time when we are putting 35 million tons of coal a year in stock—

Mr. Allen McKay: Does not my hon. Friend agree, bearing in mind the historical co-operation between the railways and the coal industry, that this is yet another such development? Will not the development of the Selby coalfield lead to further research and development and to the creation of expertise which we can sell to the rest of the world, as the Coal Board is currently selling expertise to China?

Mr. Skinner: That is a useful spin-off. We have many natural resources in this country. We have North Sea oil and we have 300 years of coal reserves, if the coal is extracted at the present rate. We have to think of what to do when the North Sea oil has finished. We do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water. We must ensure that Selby is developed at a time when there is growth in the economy, so that any slack in the industry can be taken up.
I come now to the point concerning the Common Market. The Common Market was supposed to buy our coal—not only Selby coal but all the other coal—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the coal purchasing policy of the EEC. The hon. Member knows that. He is enjoying himself immensely, but he knows that he is absolutely out of order.

Mr. Skinner: Contrary to your view, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not enjoying myself immensely. Whenever I think of the 35 million tons of coal on the ground, not being sold, and whenever I think of these Common Marketeers who are not buying British coal I do not feel happy. I am not enjoying myself. I feel bitter and frustrated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that this is a Bill designed to enable the development of the Selby coalfield. We have heard a great deal about the need for speed. I do not know why we are wasting our time now.

Mr. Skinner: You are quite right to refer to this question of speed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is why I am trying to race through my speech. I have got to the

final point, having made the point about selling coal to the Common Market. We have to buy all of its rubbish, and pay all the subscriptions too.
We must look at this development seriously, against the background of the massive fall-off in the demand for coal. There are 35 million tons of coal on the ground, close to an all-time record. Selby, and any other development, has to be viewed in that light. I hope that those in the various Departments are taking on board the fact that we have to sell more coal. This does not apply simply to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Departments of Energy and Environment. It must apply to all those who have some connection with the selling of coal. I agree with those who have dealt with the need for proper consultation. I agree with all that has been said about the creation of more jobs and the development of the infrastructure. I agree that this development will take people off the dole and will lead to the building of new houses and connected services. All of that is necessary.
The central point of my argument concerns the coal industry. It is not as buoyant as some would have us believe. It is going through a bad phase. This development must not be seen as an excuse for mining coal only at Selby. It must not mean that closures are allowed to take place in the surrounding areas of Yorkshire with redundant miners being transferred to Selby. On those grounds, but with just a little bitterness and frustration, I wish to give a blessing to the Third reading of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

OIL SPILLAGE

Postponed Proceeding on Question, That this House do now adjourn, resumed.

Question again proposed.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Adley: It is not easy suddenly to return to the subject of oil spillage, because I had barely begun my remarks, but I shall do my best.
It was interesting that in the first half of our debate we dealt with the payment of compensation as a result of the activities of big business. Almost every contributor referred to the need for those who create oil pollution to be responsible for clearing up the mess. In the debate to which we have just listened, that relating to British Rail and the Selby operations, we had a tirade from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who has already left the Chamber, at the mere thought that the National Coal Board might have to pay compensation for damaging people's lives and environment. I believe that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
In my earlier remarks I said that the impetus for the development of the oil industry and the economic benefits that flow there from have come from the corn-panics. But Governments have been left to develop the resources and facilities, to provide cures, and to cope with the environmental hazards which are the inevitable side effects of oil exploration and exploitation.
There is an analogy with the position that arose over whooping-cough vaccine. The drug companies manufactured drug vaccines recommended by the National Health Service, and only now have the Government recognised the need to provide compensation when the State itself creates the framework for the universal use of the drug.
I welcome the appointment of Rear-Admiral Stacey as director of, the marine pollution control unit. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) in his concern about Rear-Admiral Stacey's independence of action. My hon. Friend felt that he would be tied into the machinery of government rather than that he would act independently—which I believe is essential if he, is to carry out

his work effectively as the oil pollution supremo.
The Minister does not always take too kindly to criticism, particularly from certain Back Benchers, of whom I am sure I am one, but no doubt he will have read and taken to heart the criticisms of his Department in the recent Select Committee report. I shall not weary the House by reading any of those criticisms, but they are voluminous. I do not believe any Minister could lightly set aside that report. Today we have heard, from Labour as well as Opposition Members, criticism not only of the Department, but of the whole atmosphere surrounding the creation of oil pollution. I hope that will amphasise to the Minister that this is not a party political matter. Nobody wishes to make a party political issue out of the subject of oil pollution. Oil pollution will be with us for years to come and no doubt Governments of both political persuasions will be in office in those years.
Reference was made by the Minister to the"Christos Bitas"incident, and at Question Time today he said how much better a job was carried out on the"Eleni V ". However, in the Christos Bitas"incident we were lucky with the weather. Nobody knows what would have happened if the weather had turned nasty half way through that saga.
The new Secretary of State for Trade told me on Friday, in a series of Written Answers, that he accepts the philosophy that"the polluter pays ". He told me that under the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1974 there were adequate powers to deal with the situation. If there are adequate powers, one can only assume that the Government are not using them. Does the Minister believe that the Government have sufficient powers to deal with problems created by tankers which go astray and with the allocation of responsibility in cases of oil pollution? I am not referring only to circumstances that attract the headlines, but to the daily pollution of our coastline. Is he satisfied not only that he has the powers but that he is using them adequately and has the ability to reclaim funds from those who create the pollution? If that is his impression, he should be willing td, stand up and say so.


In an Adjournment debate on 13th July on this subject, when I put forward an eight-point plan to the Minister, he was critical of it to such an extent that I sent it to Mr. Roy Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins was rather less rude about it than the Minister. Mr. Jenkins wrote to me on 11th September and said
 we are thinking along similar lines ".
Perhaps the Minister will now feel that he has to answer the widespread concern that is felt by everybody who has taken part in this debate.
The Merchant Shipping Bill, which is to be discussed in the House on Thursday, deals in one clause with the problems of oil pollution. However, the Government's proposals are still too timid. Clause 20 refers to fines not exceeding £1,000 on summary conviction. The Minister did not answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives about the French legislation. What do the Government feel about the French Government's proposals? Do they believe that they are sufficiently clear to be upheld in international courts of law, and does he believe that if introduced by a British Government they will be regarded as too strong because of their potentially damaging effects on our other interests?
The"Amoco Cadiz"affair brought the French Government into action. For them necessity was the mother of invention. They have introduced really tough penalties. I submit that it is better to take parliamentary action fast and then argue whether the law is right, than to take no action and to have to spend one's time arguing about who pays for all the resultant pollution.
On the question of speed, I wish to concentrate on the anti-pollution measures which are being considered by the Government.
The Minister knows my views about the overt amount of time which has been spent in an effort to find a"detergent"answer to this problem, but for the moment I shall deal with"mechanical"devices. I mentioned, in an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), a device being developed and perfected by a company in my constituency. One of the facts to come out of the report of the Select Committee is that the mechanical device on which the Warren Spring labora-

tory seems to spend most of its time is something called Springsweep, which seems to be a device which, for its success, has to be fixed to a ship and can be used only in that way.
That is fine—the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—if we have a large number of small ships stationed round the British Isles, but the cost of doing that would be prohibitive. It is fine, also, if the next ship that happens to go aground does so 20 or 30 miles from where the Springsweep happens to be. But that will not happen.
It seems to me that Warren Spring laboratory is spending far too much of its time developing the technology which it thinks right and far too little time—this goes for the Department of Trade generally—on listening to what other people say and taking note of proposals which are being put before it by responsible and independent people, many of whose ideas bear a great deal more examination than do those which the laboratory and the Department have so far produced.
What we have to find, in my view, is a form of mechanical device which can be airlifted speedily on to any ship in the area. It is no good thinking in terms of a fixed device on a particular ship, which ship must then make haste to the scene of a disaster. We must create and develop some form of helicopter-borne technology which can be airlifted at short notice on any ship which can get near the scene of the oil pollution.
That has certainly been the intention of the company in my constituency, Oil Recovery International. It has been concentrating a great deal on just that, and as from the end of January it will have a device which can work in seas up to force 7 levels. It has a public company in this country, Star Offshore Services, in association with such well-known names as United Towing, to back it. It has the resources the facilities and the technical know-how, and it has even offered its technology to the Minister to use on an appropriate occasion. I shall not weary the House by repeating all that I said in my Adjournment debate last October.
I remain concerned, and not just about the reaction of Warren Spring and the Department of Trade towards that piece of technology. I am concerned also about what goes in the Minister's Department.


On Friday last, in another of the Written Answers in which I obtained information, I was told that there are 16 salvage tugs available to us in this country comparable in size with that currently in use by the French Government off the Brittany coast. To my surprise, I have had a number of comments and a letter again this morning from people who doubt the veracity or accuracy of the Department's information. For example, this is what is said in a letter from a marine consultant, which arrived on my desk this morning:
 It is reported in Lloyds List today that Mr. John Smith, replying to your question, has stated that he was aware of 16 salvage tugs owned by British companies with a comparable bollard pull to that of the French vessel (presently stationed off Brittany).' If the report is correct, Mr. John Smith has obviously been very seriously misinformed by his officials, and not for the first time. May I suggest that you ask the Department of Trade for the names of the tugs? 
That happened only in the past two or three days. Is the Minister fully satisfied that the information which he is being given from his officials on all these matters relating to oil pollution is satisfactory?
In view of the time taken by the debate on the Private Bill, I shall not deal with a number of points which I had intended to raise, but I put this thought to the Under-Secretary of State. There is dissatisfaction—even exasperation—in constituencies such as mine about the apparent inaction within the Department of Trade. Committees are set up, people are appointed, but it seems that precise action is taken not in this Chamber but on the other side of the Channel.
No one doubts the good intentions of the Minister and the Government. No one doubts that the Department of Trade wants to get things right. But the path to hell is paved with good intentions. Could it be that all those who have spoken in the debate today have got the matter right and that the Department of Trade, for once in its life, has got it wrong?
If the Minister will just allow himself the thought that those of us who have spoken from both sides today are not satisfied and believe that his Department could and should be doing more—if he will allow that thought to stay in his mind for a bit—this debate will not have been in vain.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: It is a great pleasure for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) in the debate, especially since in this context his constituency exhibits some of the problems which mine has. Obviously, my hon. Friend has devoted a great deal of thought to these matters and acquired great expertise—expertise which I cannot pretend to match.
Diffidently, I congratulate the Government on at last finding time for us to debate this important subject. My personal involvement does not go back as far as that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), who spoke so eloquently from the Opposition Front Bench. He was able to recall the"Torrey Canyon"disaster and the heroic episode in the career of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). My direct involvement goes back to about 1971 when the"Panther"ran aground on the Goodwins. I went out to the scene with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), who then occupied the position now occupied by the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis). I went to see what measures were being undertaken on that occasion.
Like so many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have been concerned to see today what lessons have been learnt over the intervening years and what positive steps have been taken by the Government. I am endeavouring not to be partisan. It could be that I should be making the same comments to a Government of another political complexion.
I begin my examination by considering an interesting document that was produced by the Department of Trade in July, shortly before we rose for the Summer Recess. The document is entitled"Accidents at Sea Causing Oil Pollution ". A distinguished committee was formed. As I am sure that all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have seen the document, I shall not detail the committee's formation.
The committee reached some startling conclusions and expressed them in rather startling terms. Paragraph 40 begins:
 It also has to be recognised that such a spillage could occur at some time somewhere


around our coast, although based on past experience such an event on any particular stretch of coast will be extremely infrequent.
It may be that my constituents in Dover, Deal and Sandwich will heave a deep sigh of relief. However, if they read on they will find the following:
 In broad terms, therefore, a major incident involving a laden oil tanker might be expected, say, once in a decade in the Dover Strait area. Major incidents are likely to be less frequent in less congested waters.
That is exciting news for my constituents, especially if they take up the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I add my respectful and diffident congratulations to the Select Committee. It has done a remarkable job on the evidence presented to it, especially on the incident involving the"Eleni V ".
I refer to paragraph 21 of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which states:
 This means that in effect the Department of Trade's preparations in the Channel bear no relation to the likely size of any oil pollution incident and leave the south coast virtually unprotected.
There was a certain disagreement between the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), who so ably chaired the Sub-Committee, and the Under-Secretary of State, who I hope will reply. Far be it from me to come between them. On the summary of the evidence that is to be found in the report, I prefer the view of the Sub-Committee and of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East rather than that of the Under-Secretary of State. However, I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to persuade us that the Sub-Committee took too gloomy a view.
If the Sub-Committee is right, those who are in the forefront of the battle, as they have been in the forefront of so many battles of a different sort in the past, are my constituents in Dover and Deal. I shall not ask the Under-Secretary of State to reconstitute a Dover patrol, but I have one or two practical suggestions to make.
I shall be interested to hear a candid assessment from the Government Benches. However, at this moment they are entirely devoid of occupants apart from two distinguished exceptions. I am bound to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales did not reassure me. I doubt whether he will

reassure my constituents. Although it is not for me to make personal and stringent comments, I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was woolly and rather defeatist.
However, I pass from that. I intend to concentrate on three particular points. I hope that what I have to say will be constructive and that the Under-Secretary of State will pick these points up and deal with them and say whether he agrees with them and, if he does, whether he can possibly take practical steps to remedy the problems that I outline.
The first point, which really must be self-evident—it was touched on with far more eloquence by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives—is that the most important thing must be that there should be firm and decisive co-ordination and direction of any measures after an accident has occurred. I do not, of course, intend to reflect on the quality of those who are manning the Department of Trade at the moment. Beneath their black coats and striped trousers, I am sure that there lurks many an embryonic Benbow or Beatty. It may even be that the Under-Secretary sees himself as a latter-day Hawke moving his command ship—I think there is a command ship in such situations—two points closer to an oil slick. I shall be interested to hear what his ambitions in that direction are.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Be sensible.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little sensitive. If he is a little sensitive, it can only be that he is not utterly persuaded.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I am not getting sensitive.

Mr. Rees: If the hon. Gentleman cannot take in good humour something that was passed across to him in, perhaps, a slightly jocular vein, I must say it bodes rather ill for our debate tonight and we can look forward to a rather dull and unconstructive contribution from him later tonight. Perhaps he will cool his ardour a moment.
What I have to say is that, for all I know, the Under-Secretary and certainly those who presently staff his Department are, I have no doubt, of great ability, great ambition and capable of ruthless decision when the moment requires it. But they have no direct experience, so far as I


know, of immediate action on the seas. This is what is required.
The Secretary of State for Wales told us of one such incident. There was one command ship—and this is why I venture to refer to it once more—and 65 other vessels. The only people who have experience of marshalling that kind of force, of taking that kind of decision and of responding to that kind of challenge are officers of the Royal Navy—not the Under-Secretary, if he will allow me to say so. He may have had a short naval interlude in his past. I do not know. He can perhaps reveal that to an astonished Chamber at a later stage this evening if he has. But, as far as I know, he has not.
In this situation I would, therefore, look to the Royal Navy to provide the kind of expertise and the kind of decision-making that we will require—

Mr. Clinton Davis: It is evident that the hon. and learned Gentleman is allowing his sense of humour, which is like a bowl of Parkhurst porridge, to overcome his knowledge of the facts. Is he not aware that the Royal Navy always has a command vessel available, as it did at the time of the"Eleni V"affair and the"Christos Bitas"affair and, that we have a principal officer on board who is knowledgeable about spraying matters? Is this not the answer to the point that the hon. and learned Member is seeking rather garrulously to make?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to comment on the garrulousness or otherwise of my speech in due course. No, that is not an answer. Indeed the hon. Gentleman cannot really have been following my points, or it may be—and I regret it if I have—that I have slightly irritated him and he has slightly anticipated what I am going to say.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to leap up and say"Oh, but we have appointed Admiral Stacey." I want to come to Admiral Stacey in a moment. I shall only say to the hon. Gentleman that I have no doubt that the principal officers designated by his Department—I know that there are various areas for which they are responsible—are men of supreme ability, but I am not certain whether they have the kind of experience that is needed in this kind of situation. May I, therefore, congratulate the hon.

Gentleman on the appointment,of Admiral Stacey? The reservation that I have about that appointment is that that distinguished officer is now retired. I am not saying that his experience is at all obsolete at the present time, but he is not now a serving officer, and the hon. Gentleman has enmeshed him in the toils of his own particular Department. In other words, although he has a distinguished naval past, he has, in effect, become a civil servant in the Department of Trade.
With great respect to the hon. Gentleman's Department, I do not believe that its officials have the training or the capacity to take the kind of instant, rather ruthless, decision which may be needed when a major incident occurs, such as the Department's own committee has envisaged. I believe that the unfortunate Rear-Admiral Stacey will find it rather hard to get through to the Secretary of State. He may possibly get the Under-Secretary of State on the telephone now and then, but that is not the kind of solution which I believe we need.
We certainly need an admiral, probably someone who is on the"active"list with what I would call"an independent command ". I do not know whether he should be responsible directly to the Secretary of State or to some sub-committee of the Cabinet—I am a little diffident to talk about sub-committees of the Cabinet, because we are not actually allowed to know that they exist—but let us not argue about the details. That, I believe, is the kind of administrative set-up which we need to cope with this kind of situation.
At the end of the day, putting it in what the Under-Secretary of State may regard as crude terms—and I in no way cast any aspersions on the distinguished Department for which he has some slight responsibilities—I believe that the British public would have far more confidence if they felt that an admiral of the Royal Navy were in charge of co-ordination and direction in this kind of situation. I leave the Under-Secretary of State to ponder over that and to give us, if he can, his considered views on that particular suggestion, which I hope he will accept to be as constructive as I know how to make it.
My second point is one which has already been made by several of my


hon. Friends. That is in relation to cost. Of course, if one is outside the two-mile limit, part of the cost will be borne by the Department of Trade. But within that limit the cost is borne by county councils and district councils and, indeed, by private individuals and perhaps business interests. I ventured to raise this point when the"Panther"went aground on the Goodwin Sands because I could see the Kent county council and the Dover district council—I think it was then the Dover rural district council—bearing the burden of that.
It was interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), who sensibly raised exactly the same point in relation to this recent disaster, raised the same point with the Secretary of State for the Environment on this occasion. I can tell the House, and my hon. Friend, that he received almost exactly the same reply which I got from a Conservative Administration. That leads me to fear that possibly the Department's thinking has not proceeded very far in the intervening six or seven years.
It is all very well for the Department to say"Oh yes, you can recover from the insurance companies which are insuring the companies concerned. You may even recover from the oil companies which have providentially set up such a fund ". But as all of us who have applied ourselves to this problem realise—I am sure the Under-Secretary will confirm it because he was involved in the law before he assumed his present position—that it takes a certain time to bring these claims home. There may be rather expensive litigation. The Minister's branch of the profession, and mine, may profit from it, but that is not what we are debating tonight. What we are concerned to see is that the ratepayers of the districts and the counties which are affected by oil spillage should not themselves be faced with an addition to the rates.
I am sure the Minister will recognise that this is fair, because these are disasters of national dimensions. Indeed, why should a private individual—perhaps a hotelier or someone who operates a fishing smack—have to do through this time-consuming and very expensive process? I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to make a bold and generous gesture and say"Yes. we shall accept

the liability, although we shall have to distinguish between genuine and false claims, because there are always some people who will push their luck in that situation. We shall be the people who will seek to recover against the insurers of the oil tankers and against the fund set up by the oil companies ".
The third point, which is supremely important, was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives with his usual eloquence and profundity. It is the question of preventive measures. The Secretary of State said that he was deeply proud of IMCO's record, but with a wise qualification he added that machines and men were fallible. Because of that, we must try to prevent before we consider the question of cure. I would far prefer to hear that there was no likelihood of a tanker ever running aground on the Goodwin Sands than to hear that the Under-Secretary had got together the most marvellous set of measures to cope with what might happen thereafter.
I recall the incident of the"Panther"running aground on the Goodwins. The message recorded by the coastguards at St. Margarets Bay from the master of the"Panther"was"I have run aground, where am I?" In these days of radar, this was a staggering comment. Someone had to go out from Dover to put the radar right because it was out of action.
Do we really have adequate control of the sea lanes? I emphasise that what I am saying contains no implied criticism of the coastguard service. I deeply admire the service, and I am in regular contact with coastguards in my constituency. However as they would be the first to recognise, they have very limited powers. If they find a rogue tanker going up the wrong lane, the best that they can do is to draw his attention to the fact. No doubt the Department of Trade will then write a letter in due course to the owners and perhaps also to the country concerned. But that is of small comfort to those who are likely to be hit by the tanker or likely to suffer from the spillage.
The French, with ruthless Gallic logic, have decided to extend their territorial waters. More than that, I believe—and I think that the evidence for this is to be believed—that they have stationed a gunboat in the area. Whether the Under-Secretary feels able to call on the Secretary of State for Defence for a gunboat


in such situations, I do not know. I appreciate that these are very delicate matters.
As a great seafaring nation, with probably a larger merchant marine than our French friends, we must be concerned with freedom of the seas. I believe that, historically, we have fought many wars —I do not know whether it was the war of Jenkins' Ear, but no doubt the Under-Secretary is well briefed in these matters—to defend the freedom of the seas. I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary will say that were we to be so bold—or, as he would probably say, so rash—as to take the kind of steps that the French have taken, our shipping might be at risk in the Straits of Malacca or the Baltic.
I believe that the time has come to reconsider the position. I do not put it any higher than that. I am being very moderate and responsible. I am not saying that we must have a gunboat the day after tomorrow, deployed in the Dover Straits, but I do think that the time has come to review that position.
I believe that this is an area where the EEC has a considerable role to play. Every member State, except Luxembourg, has a coastline. Every member State, to a greater or lesser degree, is concerned with the problems of pollution. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be stimulated to approach his colleagues in similar positions in other EEC countries to see that a concerted effort is made. Perhaps there could be some world-wide conference of the sea with a concerted EEC position. It is a trite observation, but prevention is always better than cure. I have not been entirely convinced by the cures provided by the Under-Secretary and I am sure that the House agrees that a few preventive measures would be infinitely more reassuring.
The Government have left an impression on me of being a little bland and complacent. No doubt that impression will be corrected by the Under-Secretary and I hope that he will take up the points that I have made and the more cogent points of my hon. Friends.
The House cannot guarantee complete immunity for the shores of this island, but we must all, particularly those of us who have the privilege to represent coastal constituencies, be able to reassure

our constituents that every reasonable measure has been taken to protect our shores.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Watt: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this short debate and to add the Scottish dimension. I am disappointed to see that the Labour Benches are almost empty, but perhaps we can be generous and say that many Labour Members must be in the Shetlands, cheering ashore the oil coming in to Sullom Voe. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be there, because that oil will certainly save his bacon.
The oil started to come ashore on Thursday night and by tomorrow night the first pipeline will be running at almost full capacity—a rate of 150,000 barrels a day. That will make a very great difference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the attitude that this country should adopt on oil pollution. It should also make a great difference to the attitude that the Minister should take in considering the problems of oil pollution.
Between now and the end of February, Britain will move from being a net buyer of oil to being a net supplier and, in that powerful position, we shall have the opportunity to lay very different terms on those who buy our oil. In a world of scarce oil resources, we have the unusual situation of the seller having the power. He can impose strict criteria on those who take away the oil. The Minister will have a wonderful opportunity to put a surveillance team on board every vessel that comes to load oil from Britain to make sure that the tanker is in a reasonable state to stand up to heavy seas.
We have three loading points for oil. Those of us who travel by train past Hunter's Point, on the Firth of Forth, have seen the tremendous amount of pollution that has already been caused along the north shore of the Forth. Oil from the Argyll field comes ashore in Teesside and, so far, there have been no major disasters there.
The terminal at Flotta has been loading oil for some time. It is small wonder that the councillors who live on the mainland of Caithness, and particularly the regional councillor who represents the John o'Groats area, are very worried at the lack of controls on the passage of


oil tankers through the dangerous waters of the Pentland Firth. The regional councillor has always maintained that no strange vessel should be allowed loaded into the Pentland Firth without having on board a pilot who knows the area.
Now, of course, we have the most wonderful bonanza of all at Sullom Voe. It means so much oil coming ashore and then being transhipped out again that the tonnage moving by the end of February will be about the same as that which goes in and out of Rotterdam in a year. That situation will clearly put a different dimension to the problem of oil pollution. We have been told of the problems in the Channel, but the future is with the Scottish people and the future problems will largely lie in Scotland.
The Scottish electors are particularly touchy about the question of oil spillage. They are annoyed because the Government take away oil revenue that really belongs to Scotland, and they are particularly annoyed by the fact that when that oil is taken away our beaches and our sea bed will be polluted. The Minister of State said that he did not want to adopt a posture of complacency, but we who represent the constituencies along the shores of Scotland believe that the Government have been far too complacent and are leaving too much to chance.
To this end, we believe that it is high time to set up a Ministry for marine affairs to look after the affairs of the sea right from the high-tide mark to the end of our economic zone, the 200-mile limit, or the median line, wherever that applies, and that everything in that sea area, whether it be marine life, the minerals on the sea bed, or the oil under the sea bed, should come under the responsibility of a Ministry for marine affairs.
Members representing Scottish constituencies are worried about the many inadequacies of the present Department of Trade. Is the Under-Secretary of State satisfied that sufficient anti-pollution vessels are stationed around the shores of Scotland to deal with these very large tonnages of oil? One thing that worries me particularly is the total inadequacy of the charts available for many of these areas, where vessels with draughts up to 90 feet have never been before. Is the Minister satisfied that the charts that the

present Hydrographer of the Royal Navy has been busy working on are adequate to cover all the areas that many of these strange, very large crude carriers can wander into? There is a genuine fear amongst many of us about this matter. It is important that these huge vessels should have compulsory pilotage. Such vessels are anything up to 1,000 feet long—indeed, in the case of vessels of up to 90-foot draught they are more than 1,000 feet long. This is a genuine worry.
Much of the pollution that has occurred up to now has been the result of small spillages and of carelessness. Some of my colleagues and I on the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee recently did a trip on two tankers in the Channel, the"British Respect"and the"British Dragoon ". There we saw a lightening operation in Lyme Bay. We had to get up at 4 o'clock one morning to see it, but we were very impressed by just how little oil a responsible company spills. We were amazed to find that the amount of oil spilled on the decks could be wiped up with two rags.
We believe that there is far too much divergence of responsibility between the Department of Trade, marine survey service, Trinity House, Her Majesty's coastguards, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. We believe that the most important thing is to keep these tankers out of danger's way.
In this instance we see the application of Murphy's law—that if something can go wrong it will. It is up to the Minister and his Department to make sure that nothing can go wrong. That is why, in the new set-up, the tankers, which must be vetted, must follow strictly policed lines. We must insist that all vessels report in and out of British waters.
I am aware that that is an entirely new concept in British marine affairs, but it has already been adopted by the Norwegians. No vessels, not even fishing vessels, go into Norwegian waters without reporting in the minute they go over the 200-mile limit or the median line. They also report out when they leave. It is no good the Minister's saying, as he may well do, that that is much too complicated. If Norway can do it with every fishing vessel, surely we can do it with much larger vessels, including tankers, which have much more sophisticated machinery.
I am also very worried about the development taking place in Nigg Bay, an inner firth of the inner Moray Firth. There is some very shallow water there. More than that, my fishermen constituents assure me that there are areas where the sandbanks move. Unless there is a pilot who really knows the area, there is real danger. The problem is that many of the oil vessels that have been accustomed to being on the run from Rotterdam round the Cape to the Gulf States have not previously experienced the very wild and cold seas around Shetland.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that the polluter must pay. That is vital. We must also ensure that the oil companies do not cut corners. Many of the accidents and strandings in recent years have occurred because oil tankers have been cutting corners. There is no excuse for that. The oil companies are very wealthy. Many people believe that they are great white gods, which can do no wrong. But they do do wrong, and they take short cuts. It is important that the Minister makes sure that nothing will go wrong. Just as we do in atomic energy matters, we must see that in dealing with all problems related to oil pollution a belt-and-braces approach is adopted.
As the major oil producer of the EEC, Britain must take total control of the operations and of the oil movements within our exclusive economic zone. That is why I do not welcome the proposed EEC measures, which suggest that the Commission should take control of the oil operations round our shores. Any bowing by us to our EEC partners would give the Commission a foot in the door.
Surely by now even the most landlocked elector in England is aware of the tragic mess that the Commission is now making, of Britain's fishing. Therefore, how can we trust the EEC to make a better job of the oil than it has over fish? I say to the EEC"Take your hands off Scotland's oil. It is bad enough having England's hands on it."

9.8 p.m.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) said that the polluter must pay. It seems that that statement has largely been the theme of the debate.
I speak on behalf of many of those who reside on the Forth estuary, who feel very strongly about the matter, because the discovery and exploitation of North Sea oil have had a marked effect upon that estuary. Just a short way from the shore of Cramond, beside the Forth railway bridge, is Hound Point, the oil-exporting terminal. The refinery at Grangemouth, further up the estuary, is one of the most important in the petrochemical industry. The dangers have recently increased substantially. There is now almost certainly far more shipping on the Forth than there is on the Clyde. It is now the fourth busiest port by tonnage after London, Milford Haven and the Tees.
Although its oil spillage record is good, there have been a number of accidental spills. In 1977, the advisory committee on oil pollution of the sea reported 17 accidental spills, and the Forth ports authority claims that that figure may have been slightly low. Even so, relatively small spills can have very adverse effects on wild life, and concern has been expressed by the RSPB and the Nature Conservancy. So far, the spills have been dealt with speedily and effectively, but if there were to be a very large oil spill from a single vessel the effects would be felt throughout the estuary and the spillage could have very damaging consequences for fishing, for bird and marine life, for beaches and for amenity areas in the whole of the East of Scotland.
The Department of the Environment estimates that by 1981 there will be a 14 per cent. chance of a large tanker spill occurring in waters off the East of Scotland. At present, the Forth channel is about 600 yards wide in certain places, and the Forth ports authority has encouraged BP to ensure that vessels coming to Hound Point are seaworthy, fully capable of loading and unloading, and under the control of persons of the highest consequence.
At present the, Clearwater Forth antipollution team believes that it could cope with a spillage of up to 1,000 tons but possibly not very much more, and we all know that a supertanker capable of using the Forth waterway could carry up to 250,000 tons. Can the Minister assure the House that in the event of an emergency off the East of Scotland, or in the Fourth estuary, an emergency service or a


major task force could be readily available there as well as in all other parts of the United Kingdom within a very few hours? The hon. Member for Banff asked how many anti-pollution vessels might be available. It is the question of speed and how quickly availaible they are which is important, and we should be grateful for some indication from the Minister.
In the present context, the powers of the Forth ports authority are very important. I understand that there is before Parliament at present a provisional Forth ports authority order giving the authority powers to issue directions after consulting the Forth pilotage authority and the General Council of British Shipping. These directions might be incorporated in written instructions and would have a penalty of up to £200 for non-observance. This penalty is laid down by the Scottish Home and Health Department. In my view, it would be quite insufficient. I notice that clause 20 of the Merchant Shipping Bill suggests £1,000. But even that figure might be quite inadequate. I ask the Minister to consider carefully the possibility of inserting much more effective deterrents.
In certain cases, it is far more economic for shipowners to risk pollution and court fines rather than to lose time and money cleaning tanks in port facilities. Surely the Secretary of State and the Minister should consider having stronger fines, the moral being that the polluter should pay and be liable for any damage. Pollution should not be in the interests of any shipowner any more than of anyone else.
The European Commission has recommended that the polluter should pay and that this requirement should be enforced strictly. There is also an EEC research programme on chemical and mechanical means of controlling pollution with minimum damage. The Government should do all in their power to encourage concerted European action on this matter as strongly as possible.
I hope that the Minister will take account of the problems of the estuaries and closed waters in the interests of the fishing industry, of wild life and, last but not least, of residents in the East of Scotland who want the amenity of their magnificent coastline to be safeguarded.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: A striking feature of this debate has been the unanimity of views expressed and the extent of the concern voiced from all parts of Britain.
I am especially pleased to be taking part in this debate because my constituency is especially vulnerable, and we have just suffered from the unhappy accident to the"Christos Bitas ". On that occasion, I was able to spend a good deal of time in the operations centre at St. Ann's Head. I inspected the beaches both onshore and from a Royal Navy helicopter.
I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating those involved on what proved a remarkably successful operation. We were fortunate. For once, the luck and the weather were with us and a major disaster was averted. Even then, extensive pollution occurred on both sides of the Bristol Channel and there was considerable loss of bird and marine life.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) concentrated substantially on the prevention of accidents. I intend to devote most of my remarks to the problems of dealing with pollution when the accidents have occurred, and with compensation. All I would say of some of the specifics that have been advanced in connection with prevention during this debate is that a good many of them have snags that we should recognise. We should not think that there are easy panaceas. For example, even the fairly obvious suggestion of regulated lanes can, if not done skilfully, contribute to accidents.
A pilot with great knowledge of the area has seriously suggested to me that this may prove to have been a contributory cause of the"Christos Bitas"accident, but we will not know until we have the inquiry. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), when I shook my head, about visibility from the Welsh coast, the inquiry may reveal that visibility was down to four miles at the time and that Grassholm and the Welsh coast were probably invisible. But that is no conceivable excuse for the accident.
I have considerable doubts whether compulsory pilotage is a practical proposition in all areas around our coast. There are considerable problems, not least


in getting pilots aboard in the Western Approaches and similar places, although it may prove a sensible answer in a more confined setting. I have a great deal of sympathy with the views of the hon. Members for Cornwall, North and Banff (Mr. Watt) about compulsory surveillance and reporting. On all these subjects and on some of the wider issues referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, we need a Government paper settting out some of the arguments and the Government's views on them. We need more clarification of their thinking on these important prevention questions.
We may be certain that however successful we are with international prevention measures and steps that we can take in our own waters, pollution will continue for the foreseeable future and that some will be massive. I share the judgment on that point of the Secretary of State for Wales.
At present, we suffer from chronic pollution interspersed, much more rarely, with catastrophes. Estimates of the extent of the problem vary considerably. In a recent Lords debate, a Minister said that Her Majesty's coastguards had reported 164 incidents around Britain in 1977. But the annual survey of the advisory committee on pollution of the sea revealed 642 incidents and that is the figure that the EEC Commission accepts. Since 1970, on the other hand, the Department of Trade's organisation for dealing with incidents at sea had been activated only 11 times and on only four occasions did the quantities spilled exceed 2,000 tons.
However, the"Eleni V ", the"Christos Bitas ", the"Amoco Cadiz"and the Anglesey spills have given vivid evidence of the scale of the threat confronting us. It is not surprising that there is widespread concern, evidenced here by the frequent debates that we have had in the last year, initiated by Back Benchers in both Houses and by the early-day motion in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and many other right hon. and hon. Members.
The Select Committee which reported on the"Eleni V"incident was justifiably critical of that operation. Many lessons were learned. The Department of Trade emerged with credit from the"Christos Bitas"affair, but one is still left with the impression that our present arrange

ments are inadequate for the scale of the problem.
In two previous debates, the Under-Secretary of State, who is to reply to tonight's debate, sought to deal with the matter by being rather offensive to my hon. Friends the Members for Honiton and Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), who have taken a praiseworthy interest in the subject. I thought that the Under-Secretary of State was also a little short with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). The Under-Secretary of State tried to create the impression that when confronted by admittedly difficult problems everything was being done that could be done. In the light of the views that have been expressed today from all parts of the House and by the Select Committee report, that approach would be a mistake tonight.
The acceptance of unpleasant realities, of which the Under-Secretary of State has spoken in the past, is commendable, but a certain humility in the face of suggestion, criticisms and experience of others would be prudent.
I wish to deal with the problem of control to which a number of hon. Members have referred. I wish to point to two lessons which should be drawn from the"Christos Bitas"incident. First, the mistakes of the"Eleni. V"were not repeated at sea. There was prompt and effective control. The operation was run smoothly by the officers on the spot at St. Ann's Head.
Whatever the argument for overall control, there is little doubt that the experience and resources of the Department of Trade are relevant. In future, that experience is to be organised through the new pollution control unit. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives suggested, its responsibility should be direct to senior Ministers and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal said, it should have a degree of independence. The chairman of the Select Committee said that it is important that tile officer in charge should have real and effective authority. I agree with that.
I formed the impression, during the recent incident, that for an affair on this scale, control in the region from a coastguard station has clear advantages.
In its review of contingency measures, the working party discussed the option of using the joint services maritime headquarters in Plymouth and Scotland. That might be appropriate to deal with a massive disaster in those areas. But there is much to be said, in terms of proximity to events, and contact with local authorities and the press, for the people who are directing the operation to he at the nearest, adequately equipped coastguard station. I emphasise the words"adequately equipped"because much needs to be done if places such as St. Ann's Head are to be used efficiently as control centres. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will accept that since he has visited that place.
On land, the major lesson to emerge is that there is a massive and, so far, unresolved problem about what one does to dispose of oil which is deposited on shore and which might be mixed with large quantities of sand and shingle.

Mr. Fell: An interesting matter emerged from the"Eleni V"incident which do not think was discussed in the report. It was that if the oil is buried under about 8 feet of sand it is never seen again. During the war, oil was buried and nothing has seeped through.

Mr. Edwards: That is is an interesting point which should be examined. In the recent incident, nobody, including the National Parks Commission, the Ministry of Defence at Pendine, where there are extensive dunes, and the Welsh water authority, was prepared to accept deposits on refuse tips or anywhere else because of the fear of damage to the environment and because of the danger of water pollution.
I understand that research is now going on into disposal and that an investigation is being made of possible sites. The Preseli district council strongly urges the Government to press on with research, which it regards as being of prime importance, and to lay down clearer guidelines for local authorities.
This raises the important question of control. In the event of a major disaster, who would have the authority to reach decisions about dumping and other emergency measures on land? No one has the same authority as the chief officer

of the Department of Trade has at sea. Such power as exists rests with the local authorities. In the"Christos Betas"affair a senior official of the Welsh Office played a useful role. I think that the Secretary of State implied that he could have taken a more decisive action if that had been called for, but I tend to doubt that under the existing arrangements. I doubt whether he could have done more than negotiate between the various parties. I should be interested to know from where he would have drawn his powers.
What is required is not so much a director of land operations, filling a coordinating and overseeing role, about which the Secretary of State spoke, but a final authority able to act between competing departments and organisations and to take difficult decisions in a crisis.
In the light of their experience the West Wales local authorities welcome the establishment of the marine pollution control unit, which is to be under the direction of Rear-Admiral Stacey. They want an equivalent far-reaching power for a designated Minister so that he may deal with the problems on land.
I am not completely clear, and I may have got it wrong, but as I understand it Admiral Stacey and his unit have no power over land operations. They are concerned only with what happens at sea. My local authority is suggesting that there should be comparable powers on land. That seems to be a sensible proposal. But it leaves the question of overall control to be resolved. This matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), who wants the Department of the Environment to take decisions where there may be a conflict of interest between what is happening at sea and what may result from it on land. In Scotland and Wales, of course, that would have to he dealt with by the Scottish and Welsh Offices respectively. That in itself creates a complication.
In any case, the co-ordination of Departments is a matter for the Prime Minister, and I would not want to prejudge any decision that a Prime Minister might have to take in the future. So long as there is effective departmental responsibility on land and at sea, surely coordination ought to be possible between them. All I ask at this stage is that the


whole question of responsibility should be reconsidered at the highest level.

Mr. John Morris: That is precisely what I said. I said that there was a demand for someone to be appointed in this way, but that the point to be considered was the one that the hon. Member was adumbrating a few moments ago, namely, what powers should be given to the person appointed.

Mr. Edwards: I am glad to have the right hon. and learned Gentleman's undertaking that this matter is being looked at. He made an earlier reference to it, and, as I suggested earlier, I am not entirely happy about some of the phrases that he used, particularly the suggestion that this person should take over some of the duties of the local authority. I do not believe that that is what is required, but I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will examine what has been said in the debate and by the local authorities and carefully consider all these points.
I wish now to deal with the question of equipment. Some of the hand sprayers that have been used are perfectly suitable for minor clean-up jobs, but have proved to be woefully inadequate in dealing with the large quantities of oil and"mousse"that came ashore on certain beaches. There were also problems about getting some other equipment on to the beaches.
One of the most effective instruments to be used throughout the operation—it would not be universally suitable—was an old fire engine which was able to squirt detergent on the oil on the water, on the rocks and in the harbour. We have to use some imagination and inventiveness.
My local authorities welcome the new control depots being established by the Department. They believe that it is acceptable that they should be as far away as Bristol, in the case of the South Wales area. The depots are intended to supplement what is available locally. The contents could be on the scene within a few hours. As for the equipment at sea, we are fortunate that the"Christos Bitas"chose to go aground close to what is probably the best-equipped port to handle oil pollution in the world. At any rate, adequate numbers of tugs and other vessels were quickly on the scene.
It is probably desirable that in future we should have available some heavy stripping pumps and that information should be readily available about where heavy compressors and other salvage equipment can be quickly obtained. I welcome the undertaking, in today's report on the"Christos Bitas"incident, to establish a cache of such equipment under United Kingdom Government control.
Considerable doubts and criticisms have been expressed during the debate about the research effort and pre-planning. The Chairman of the Select Committee pointed out—indeed the Secretary of State in his speech admitted—that no preparation for dealing with heavy fuel oil had been made. The Chairman of the Select Committee thought that there had been complacency within the Department of Trade generally and I think that that is fair comment.
My hon. Friend for Hastings (Mr. Warren), a member of the Select Committee, spoke of the lack of leadership on the part of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton asked some important and entirely reasonable questions about the adequacy of the research effort. He inquired whether there were overall catalogues and inventories. The central question, which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal, concerned the equipment, and this was brought out in the Select Committee report and the report of contingency measures carried out by the marine division working party.
The present policy is to maintain sufficient resources to treat a maximum of 16,000 tons of oil per day, spilled round the whole of our coasts, within which total the area capability would range from only 1,500 to 3,000 tons, or 6,000 tons in the Channel. It is also the policy to have equipment capable of dealing with 1,000 tons per day coming on shore around the whole of our coastline. A considerable question mark hangs over that policy and over the conclusions of the working party to the effect that nothing has happened to invalidate the judgment on which existing policy is based.
The job of the working party was to advise the Government. This is not the type of decision which, ultimately, can be


left and simply accepted on the word of the working party, however distinguished it may be. It is a major political decision. I found the working party report chillingly inadequate, not only in its conclusions but in the bland and casual way in which, on page 6, it justified this decision. After pointing out that coping with the worst possible disaster would entail tying up large resources to deal with a disaster which might occur once a decade, and that even this scaled-up capability would not, in the worst case prevent oil coming ashore in substantial quantities, it added:
 Also the resulting pollution, though it is damaging to the environment and to amenity, and a matter of great public concern does not cause injury or loss of life to people. Moreover, oil pollution can, at a cost, be cleared up.
If, anywhere in Britain, people were to see devastation on the scale of the social and economic catastrophe suffered in Brittany, they would find that casual last sentence pretty hard to stomach.
I do not underestimate the problem. We are told that about 100 ships are available under present arrangements and that, with a 24-hour assembly period, we would need 500 ships in favourable circumstances and that the cost would be prohibitive. The trouble is that the cost of a disaster on that scale would also be prohibitive. Even the working party sees the possibility—no, the probability—of a major disaster involving a laden oil tanker once in a decade in the Dover Straits area. No wonder my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal expressed concern.
There is much more that we can do without the cost being prohibitive. Of course I accept that one cannot prevent oil coming ashore and massive pollution if a major accident occurs. But if pollution occurs, one cannot play with it. We should do more within our own resources. Much of the equipment is still primitive and experimental. Surely, as, the working party said in its report and as the Secretary of State for Wales hinted in his speech, there is considerable scope for air spraying. We have only just begun with the techniques. Far more research is needed. But in my view a proper way to resolve the dilemma is not by going it alone, but by pooling the

available resources. This pooling must take place at various levels. It must take place internally.
The Select Committee, in paragraph 22 of its report, points to the lack of a plan to concentrate national resources quickly, and in paragraph 23 suggests ways in which this could be done. The policy must take full advantage of all resources, private and public. My hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) and Honiton (Mr. Emery) urged that the Government should not go it alone but should make use of the tremendous resources of the oil industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington referred to private technology. On the Continent and in the United States the authorities are making increasing use of commercial contractors for clean-up work. There are firms in Holland, Italy, France and Denmark which specialise in the clean-up pollution business. I am informed that private firms in Rotterdam could have placed 20 trucks with equipment on a ferry within eight hours to help with the"Christos Bitas ".
That brings me to the third area in which pooling must take place. It must take place at an international level. It is a fairly remarkable fact that, apart from passing reference to the French, there is no mention in this review of contingency measures of our neighbours and no reference to the EEC. It is an attitude which, sadly, we have come to expect from the Government, but I still find it incredible.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales referred to the EEC documents and particularly welcomed the document on safety, but he said virtually nothing about the EEC suggestion on pollution clean-up. The fact is that the European Commission is showing more urgency and realism about this matter than apparently are the Government. The Commission has put forward proposals for prevention, dispersal and compensation. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) was right to see the EEC document as a springboard, and he suggested the involvement of the Council of Europe.
One of the first steps proposed in these documents is for a census on a Community-wide basis of all specialist teams


and equipment to assess availability and compatability. This would allow the necessary action squads to be set up. We in the Opposition believe that, in addition to improving our own facilities, we should be moving urgently to make these EEC proposals a reality. There needs to be a carefully prepared European scheme for tackling the major oil pollution incidents.
That brings me to the question of compensation, which is directly related to the cost of these arrangements. The costs arise directly as a result of an accident and on a continuing basis as anti-pollution measures are maintained. Some of the accident costs are recovered under existing convention and insurance arrangements when the source of pollution is known. But the continuing costs are not recovered, nor is the recovery where the spills are of unknown origin. The Department tends to say that the cost of these unknown spills is relatively small, but it may be considerable for individuals. Collectively, the burden of all these anti-pollution measures falls on the taxpayer, the ratepayer and private citizens. There are strong arguments that these costs should fall on the charterers and carriers who cause the nuisance and be passed on through the price mechanism to the consumer.
Hon. Members on both sides have spoken of the principle that the polluter pays. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North rightly emphasised the importance of the charterers. Lord Ritchie-Calder and his advisory committee are by no means alone in calling for the establishment of a fund financed by a levy on shipping or on charterers. No doubt, the Minister will argue that we must not impose undue burdens on the shipping industry and suggest that it would be difficult to proceed except on an international basis. Of course, there are great problems. After all, much of the shipping passing our shores and polluting our shores is not on its way to British ports. I understand that discussions are going on within the tanker owners' federation about a possible fund, and at the recent Carmarthen conference on the"Christos Bitas"spill a Government spokesman said that consideration was being given to a central fund.
We want to hear the Government's views on that matter. I urge them to

work closely with the EEC. This is another area for co-operation, since if we have to go ahead with a levy-financed fund ahead of wider international agreement it will be better to do so on a European basis with a levy applied to shipping entering all EEC ports—the hon. Member for Sunderland, South would apply it to all ports in Europe, inside and outside the EEC—and that would be a pretty effective base on which to launch such a scheme.
I put two specific points to the Under-Secretary of State. First, regarding the site chosen for the sinking of the"Christos Bitas ", the report published today says that it was chosen in accordance with the spirit of the London dumping convention. This morning I received a rather disturbing letter from Dr. Nelson Smith of Swansea university, a considerable authority on this subject, pointing out that the site was right in the middle of the prohibited zone under the 1954 convention, as amended in 1962, and that oil rising to the surface might be expected to reach Britain in about 30 to 40 days as a result of surface drift. May we have the Minister's comments on that letter?
Secondly, we know that private citizens may make claims in respect of damage and loss under the terms of the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971, but what needs clarification and a public statement is to whom those claims should be addressed. Will the Government make themselves responsible, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal suggested, for paying individuals and local authorities and then set about recovering the costs from those responsible? What is their position on that?
I believe that the Government's approach, despite the advances which undoubtedly have been made, has been too piecemeal. They have advanced from crisis to crisis, and their approach is still inadequate because, in effect, they are washing their hands of any ability to cope with a major disaster, which almost certainly will come. If the major disaster does happen, we shall have to cope with it. We had better start preparing for it now, and the best way to do that is on a European basis.

9.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): This has been a


wide-ranging debate and it will be difficult for me to take up every point that has been raised by hon. Members on both sides, as will, I believe, be appreciated, but I shall do my best.
At no time have I ever expressed in the House, on television or anywhere else the view that the Government have a complete answer to these problems or indeed, that we are complacent about them. I am extremely surprised that that charge should have been made but, bare of evidence, it has been made, and at the outset, therefore, I seek simply to repudiate it.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) spoke of the inadequacies of the working party report. Perhaps I should add that there are in addition four studies which we hope will be complete by the end of the year—naturally, the House will be informed about them at the earliest opportunity—to deal with the following topics: the command control and communication question, the question of resources and research and development, the question of salvage and the availability of salvage equipment, and the question of liability and compensation.
We have a great deal to learn from the incidents that have occurred, but, as I shall endeavour to establish, the charge that we have learnt nothing since"Torrey Canyon does not bear examination. We have to consider these matters in a wider sphere than our domestic resources and domestic expertise. We have to look wider than the EEC. Surely we must be capable of learning not merely from the EEC but from countries such as the United States, Norway and Sweden. It would be folly if we closed our eyes to the experience that such countries are able to offer.
We feel, too, that we can make a powerful contribution. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales stated at the outset of the debate, we have taken a number of important international initiatives through IMCO. We have been anxious to support the moves that have recently been made at the EEC to fill in the gaps and to bring quicker implementation, followed by enforcement, of decisions that have been made at IMCO.
When we move to consideration of the Merchant Shipping Bill later this week we propose to recommend to the House that powers be given to enable the Government to implement IMCO agreements by regulation before they have the force of international law. We do not believe that that will breach the concept that I have been anxious to explain to the House ever since becoming a Minister and dealing with these matters. I do not believe that it will breach the concept of establishing the authority of IMCO. We would be merely anticipating the coming into effect of decisions that have already been arrived at internationally. We would seek the power to do that by subordinate legislation. That will be a matter for the House to decide when we consider the Merchant Shipping Bill in Committee. The House will decide whether the Government should have such powers. I shall be making the recommendation strongly.
As for the international dimension, I deal first with operational discharges. We have heard from my right hon. and learned Friend and other hon. Members that these constitute the most potent cause of pollution and that accidents, serious though they are, represent a much smaller measure of damage to the environment. I am not in any sense mitigating their effect. It is important that we have to deal with accidents as well as operational discharges. However, a number of hon. Members have sought to put the matter in a proper perspective.
Discharges of oil into the sea, in the sense that they are caused by operational discharges, are related to the need to clean cargo tanks. British oil and shipping companies, with the support of the Government, have played a leading part in devising methods to reduce pollution of the seas from that source and getting them accepted internationally. The latest technique of that sort, following load-on-top, is crude oil washing, known elegantly as COW, whereby part of the oil cargo is recycled during unloading and sprayed through high-pressure jets to remove the great bulk of the residues normally left in the tanks after discharge and recover it for the cargo. The acceptance of this technique was a major success at the February conference of IMCO, which dealt with tanker safety and pollution prevention.
Many other important measures were agreed then, and it may be helpful if I just list them without commenting in any detail upon them. They include the segregation of cargo and ballast tanks on new tankers; the protective location of the ballast tanks to reduce the risk of outflow in the event of a collision or grounding; much wider use of inert gas systems to reduce the risk of explosion, especially when tank cleaning is under operation; duplicated elements in steering gears; more frequent inspections of tankers; and in the area of navigational safety, second radars and the development of collision avoidance aids.
The Merchant Shipping Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify these and other important international agreements concerning maritime safety and pollution prevention. Thereafter, we propose to use every effort to ensure that they come into force internationally as quickly as possible.
Those are very important developments. It is quite wrong to imply, as some hon. Members may have done, that IMCO has not been getting on with the job or has simply related its tasks to a number of incidents that have occurred. This is an ongoing process, and it has been a matter of very great concern to us to support IMCO in all this valuable work.
One other factor I would mention is that IMCO has set new target dates for ratification and implementation of these proposals. Admittedly, for this particular area these are as far ahead as 1981. Of course, it is necessary to get the international community of shipping to recognise that these things have to take place. It needs a certain amount of education and a certain amount of expenditure. But fixing a target date is an advance over what happened before. We shall do our very best to ensure, as I have said, that other nations can be shown an example by us in early ratification.

Mr. Watt: We are delighted to hear that the Government have been pushing on for ratification of these various measures within IMCO, but can the hon. Gentleman say that at the end of the day there is any way in which he can impose penalties or sanctions on those oil companies and those nation States which do not recognise the IMCO regulations?

Mr. Davis: I shall come to the question of compensation, but it so happens that virtually all the major shipping countries, including flags of convenience, recognise these international conventions, and I am no great admirer of flags of convenience, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
Before I come to the question of human fallibility, which is an important one, I ought to comment on a point that has been raised by a number of hon. Gentlemen. In so far as operational discharges in our waters are concerned, it is clearly an offence for a British or foreign vessel to undertake such discharges. I think it is right to say that, provided that we are able to secure the evidence—and this is true of any criminal offence—then we are very ready to prosecute any ship that comes into our ports. The problem is securing the evidence.
Many of these acts of great irresponsibility occur at night, or when one simply cannot expect them to occur. They occur, most irresponsibly, in the wake of a catastrophe. For example, in respect of the"Amoco Cadiz ", there was evidence that irresponsible masters were discharging their tanks and thereby adding further pollution to the French coast. This also happened with the"Eleni V ". Fortunately, it does not appear to have happened as far as the"Christos Bitas"incident is concerned.
It is an act of gross and overwhelming irresponsibility for people to indulge in that. If it happens and we catch them in our territorial waters—and I shall come to the point about territorial waters later—we certainly will prosecute. The courts have powers to impose very heavy penalties indeed. Magistrates, quite exceptionally, and at the insistence of this House when the 1971 Act was passed, may impose a fine of up to £50,000 on the master and/or on the ship owner. The higher courts are able to impose an unlimited fine. Therefore, I am confident that I carry the House with me when I express the hope that the courts in appropriate cases should make fuller use of those powers than they have tended to in the past.

Mr. Bagier: Is not the difficulty that there is no set pattern right across the ports? If we had a pattern in the whole of the European ports which applied a set system and control we might have a


better means of bringing these people to book.

Mr. Davis: There is a point in what my hon. Friend says, but in the final analysis the court must have the discretion as to the imposition of a fine in the event of a conviction. There is no way of avoiding that situation. All I am hoping is that the courts will take note of the views that have been expressed in the House, which I believe are representative of the country as a whole.
As to human fallibility, a most important conference of IMCO was held in June and July of this year to deal with training, certification and watch-keeping practices. We took the initiative of ensuring that special attention was paid to those who were in command of tankers and other vessels carrying a potentially noxious cargo. I think that it was right for us to do so. This is a most important development. I believe that in the due course of time—it will not be too long—the effect of this will be felt throughout the international shipping community.
Having said that, I should like to try to pick up as many of the points as I can which have been made. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) made some initial comments about my right hon. and learned Friend, who has had one or two problems in mitigation in the last few days. I do not think that it was altogether unreasonable that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who had familiarised himself with this matter as a result of the incident which occurred just off the shores of Wales, should have opened the debate in these circumstances. I notice that the hon. Member for St. Ives now forgives him, and I shall convey that to my right hon. and learned Friend.
I was asked why we were waiting until Christmas—incidentally, it is not a Christmas present—to publish our reply to the Select Committee's report. I think that we would have done less than justice to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) if we had published a response which dealt inadequately with the criticisms that were made. In fact, we had anticipated earlier that this debate would take place after the report had been published. But it was felt appropriate—there is a good deal

to commend this point of view—that it would have been wrong for other important issues in the Merchant Shipping Bill to have been confused with this issue.

Mr. Palmer: In order to encourage my hon. Friend, I should tell him that if he replies before Christmas, that is about a quarter of the time that it normally takes a Government Department to reply. I compliment him on that.

Mr. Davis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend at least for that, if not for everything that he said.
The hon. Member for St. Ives wanted to know about the position of Admiral Stacey in relation to the Department. He asked why he was to be a member of the Department. I cannot see how the admiral could operate independently of a Department. We have a great deal of expertise within the Department, with 50 to 60 nautical surveyors who have Merchant Navy command experience. We draw our oil pollution officers from that source. We also have senior coastguards with command experience. They can make an important contribution to the work of Admiral Stacey. He will clearly need to work with them, but in an emergency he will have direct access to Ministers. It is important to emphasise this.
On the question of compensation, the polluter pays in the final analysis. Let me summarise the international provisions. First, we have the international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage of 1969, which was enacted in our legislation in 1971. A difficulty about that was that the shipowner could limit the amount of damages, depending on the saze of his vessel, and there was a maximum of £9 million imposed. Therefore, the oil companies got together to create a voluntary scheme which is known as Cristal. That was designed to bolster the provisions of that convention.
There was a further convention, the international fund convention, which was agreed in 1971, to increase the coverage of the compensation agreements. This was financed by the major oil importers. The total sum available for compensation was £19½ million. That came into force on 16th October of this year. We tried last week to double that amount, and we were together with the French Government on that. Unfortunately, we


did not succeed in convincing others that it should be doubled at this stage. I hope that we shall be able to do so in future.
The hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned traffic separation schemes and their breach. This constitutes an offence under section 680 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. We can prosecute foreign flag vessels which cause such breaches of the traffic separation schemes in our waters, but only, in practice, if they call at our ports. We can, of course, prosecute British vessels for breaches that they commit anywhere in the world. But the penalties are grossly inadequate. At present they are a fine of only £100 on summary conviction and/or imprisonment for up to six months and, on indictment an unlimited fine and/or imprisonment for up to two years. Although this is not stated in the Merchant Shipping Bill as published, we propose to increase the fine on summary conviction very substantially by Government amendment at a later stage.
The question of standarad salvage procedures is under review. This needs to be done in the international sense. It is a matter which the legal committee of IMCO is studying at present. We must look at our own practice of salvage, and this was dealt with earlier.
I come to the question of French action, sometimes bordering on and sometimes going over the unilateral action of which we do not really approve. We do not approve of unilateral action, because a series of such actions could confuse the situation.
The international shipping community should abide by the internationally agreed requirements. If one nation goes one way and another nation goes another way the result is chaos. In those circumstances no adequate response can be found to the questions which must be answered by the community. We have told the French that we are unhappy about certain aspects of the actions that they have taken. On the other hand, we have supported some proposals. For example, we need to examine the question of reporting in before a ship gets into a traffic separation scheme or if a vessel is in trouble. These are matters which certainly demand support, but I am much more sceptical about interception by naval vessels and the imposition of penalties that might deter a conscientious master even putting to sea.
I am not suggesting that the French Government are irresponsible about this matter, but some countries undoubtedly are. As an important maritime nation, we have to be aware that masters and officers are deeply concerned about action that might be taken to their detriment by countries wanting to use political muscle rather than deal with pollution that has arisen.
The hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned The Hague memorandum. I agree that everything possible should be done to extend the scope of the memorandum and this was one of my aims when I was in Brussels a few days ago. The power to detain sub-standard ships is an important power and part of our defensive mechanism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East referred to demarcation and the one-mile limit. No one has suggested that the one mile should be adhered to strictly. It is a convenient way of demarcating responsibility between the Departments of Trade and the Environment, but there is no hard and fast deciding line.
My hon. Friend and his Committee took me to task for the way in which I consulted local authorities. My Department and I will deal with that aspect in greater detail when we respond to the report, but I had no intention of creating a charade of consultation. I had to present some ideas that were reasonably firm to the local authorities and other interests because we would otherwise have had a very wide agenda and would have come to hardly any conclusive results. I listened carefully to the local authorities' propositions. Where practicable and where the urgency of the situation permits it, we ought to engage in consultation. We did so, as far as we could, over the"Christos Bitas ".
However, there is a potential conflict about which my hon. Friend must make up his mind. There can be a conflict between the need to give authority to the principal officer or the supremo and the need for extensive consultations, whether with local authorities or the oil companies. There seems to be a lacuna in the Committee's thinking on that matter.
It is much better that we should deal with the criticisms concerning delay when we issue our comprehensive reply to the


Select Committee report, but I welcome the constructive critcisms in the report. I acknowledge that we made mistakes. Even in our successful enterprise of dealing with the"Christos Bitas ", we made mistakes. It is inconceivable that, looking back on actions taken urgently, one would not say that they could have been handled differently in some material respects.

Mr. Palmer: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he said. He said that he had had consultations, but the Select Committee urged that much more power should be given to the highly professional executive officer on the spot.

Mr. Davis: The principal officer in that case had the power to take emergency decisions, and he exercised it. I well recall his doing so. I was closely involved throughout that incident. However, there were important matters, not of a desperately urgent nature, that had to be referred to London.
For example, the question of our relations with other nations is not a matter for the principal officer. Nor would it be a matter for the so-called"supremo"It is a matter for the judgment of Ministers. We exercise it rightly or wrongly, but it must be a matter where we carry the responsibility and become answerable to the House.
I turn now to the suggestion that the South Coast is virtually unprotected. With respect to some of the criticisms of his speech, I believe that my right hon. Friend dealt with the matter in some detail, and adequately. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East said that the only evidence before him was that of a capability of dealing with 6,000 tons per incident. My hon. Friend's memory has failed him on that point. I call his attention to paragraph 3 on page 114 of the report, which gives part of the evidence given by my Department. That evidence was that
 The Department's contingency arrangements are geared to providing the capability to treat some 16,000 tons of oil per day at sea around the United Kingdom coastline as a whole; this total includes some 3,000 tons per day for the Department's south-eastern Marine Survey District.
That was our evidence, and apparently it was overlooked by the Select Committee.
My hon. Friend drew the attention of the House to a very important matter—the question of priorities in public expenditure. All kinds of pollution of our constituents' lives have to be taken into account as well. It is interesting that many of the proposals by the Opposition involved increased public expenditure, although they shied away from it. When it comes to constituency points, Opposition Members are never shy of asking for such things to be done. I shall not go on to make more party political points, however. The Opposition always claim that they are not making party political points, but in fact do so.

Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Gentleman said that the Department's contingency arrangements arc geared to provide him with the capability of treating some 16,000 tons of oil a day at sea around the United Kingdom as a whole. That was not what the Select Committee said. It said:
 Furthermore, in any one part of the Channel the spraying capacity is far less than 6,000 tons.
Is there no difference between those two statements?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The Committee referred to a capability of 6,000 tons per incident. The important figure is 6,000 tons per day. However, I will not go on about that because my right hon. Friend dealt with it.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) made a number of interesting points on the question of utilising hovercraft and helicopters to agitate the waters. Warren Springs is working on this, as the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know. Suction pumping, I understand, is mainly for use on the beaches. It is trying to arrive at more effective procedures for that. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how many standby boats have been recruited for Cornwall and Devonshire. I shall write to him about it.
I turn to the question of cleansing and the stockpiling of specialised oil clearance equipment. The Department of the Environment is arranging for specialised oil clearance equipment to be stockpiled, and studies are going on into the subject. There is also a review of beach-cleaning contingency plans. I do not want to go on at length about


that. It is not within my Departmental responsibility. But my right hon. Friend raised the possibility of the central Government appointing a co-ordinator to take over the responsibility for coastal clean-up operations.
On the question whether these operations should be carried out by the Department of Trade or the Department of the Environment, I remind the House that two quite different operations have to be undertaken. The operation at sea is not within the expertise of the Department of the Environment. I know that some people say that, it is not within that of the Department of Trade either, but I think that we have the resources, the surveyors and the people with the knowledge. I believe that as a result of the new marine pollution control unit we shall also have that experience channelled more rationally and sensibly than we have in the past.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of other important points. He asked whether I was satisfied with the activities of Warren Spring. I do not know whether I have the expertise to say that I am satisfied or am not satisfied with the scientific laboratory's activities. Those at the laboratory know very well that more studies are necessary to deal with the heavy fuel oil problem. However, no one in the world has been able to find an antidote to that problem.
The oil companies have been very co-operative in providing us with facilities —Captain Maybourn is to assist the new unit and the companies are investigating the problem of burning oil, about which I shall say a word later, and are helping with the research and development programme. We take all these factors into account, but they are the oil companies' responsibilities, and they should take those responsibilities in hand.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about having a conference of all interested bodies. We undertake to have such a conference early in the new year; we had planned to have one round about March. It could make a substantial contribution to our thinking.
I come now to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), which were essentially the questions of compulsory pilotage and burning. The hon. Gentleman wanted

burning to be a doctrine of first resort. That would be wrong, as the"Christos Bitas"incident showed. It would have been wrong to burn that vessel.

Mr. Pardoe: Why?

Mr. Davis: Because we were able to discharge a great deal of the oil from it and to save a certain amount of important equipment. To have tried to burn the vessel would have been an operation fraught with difficulties. First, the vessel was down fairly low in the water. The decks were awash, and there was no certainty that burning could have been accomplished with any degree of success. We might have had great difficulties in trying to clear up any residue that was left after an attempt at burning. In any event, that approach is inconsistent with the Select Committee's report in 1967 and 1968.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) was anxious that we should consider the extension of The Hague memorandum, but it already extends beyond the EEC.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) was concerned about the lightening operations in Lyme Bay. I should like to pay the hon. Gentleman this tribute. He has taken a very reasonable and responsible view of them.
I do not think that compulsory pilotage provides a panacea. I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Pembroke said about that. There are difficulties about obtaining sufficient pilots with the necessary expertise. There is by no means agreement that the wider use of deep sea pilots would be useful to the seafaring community.
The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) is not here, so perhaps I can better reply to his points in correspondence. The hon. Gentleman apologised to me before leaving the Chamber. I accept his apology, and I believe that I have taken rather a long time in replying to the debate.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Hear, hear.

Mr. Davis: I have the acclamation of the Deputy Chief Whip for that statement. However, the House will realise that I have been trying to deal with many disparate points.

Mr. Wigley: Will the hon. Gentleman respond to the representations made by several hon. Members about the burden on local authorities, the additional cost that lands on those local authorities that have to clean up the routine oil spillage that hits them year in, year out? Is there any way in which the Government can help them?

Mr. Davis: I have given some attention to this problem with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment. The problem is that the total amount involved is about £100,000 a year. It does not all fall on one local authority and, although I wish to continue to investigate the matter, we could create a very heavy bureaucracy which would cost far more than £100,000 in representing the sort of compensation which would be required. However, this is a matter that we shall continue to keep under review. But the local authorities were aware of this back in 1974. When it appeared as part of the rate support grant, they were happy to accept it on that basis.
The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) raised a number of matters, some of which I have dealt with already. He was concerned especially about the adequacy or inadequacy of Warren Spring in pursuing new ideas. I think that some of his criticisms were without justification. He referred to the oil mop, with which he is himself concerned as a constituency Member. On his own admission, this is awaiting a full-scale prototype, and it is much too early to make a judgment about its value. He also spoke of navigational aids. I have already dealt with that matter.
The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) was scathing of the Government's actions in regard to the Dover strait. Although no one can give any guarantees, and although accidents can occur in so constricted an area of water, I think that we can claim that the success which the traffic separation scheme has enjoyed is considerable. It has halved the number of accidents, and that is progress. However, there are 300 vessels going through the Dover strait each day in the summer months, and that is a fact with which we have to live. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has any comprehensive and useful ideas to put forward, we shall consider them.
The compensation of individuals is a very difficult matter. This is not the only area where people can be disadvantaged as a result of claims which they may have and which are not settled promptly. It is not an area where it would be right for the Government to say"We shall enable Mr. X, who claims that he has suffered damage, to pursue his claim outside the courts, if that is necessary." He has to prove his claim in the first place. The proposition which has been put forward about the Government settling the claim and standing in for the individual later on is one which would have considerable ramifications in other areas. I do not think that we should pursue that as hon. Members have suggested.
The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) was concerned about hydrography. We are considering an aspect of public expenditure in that regard.
We are very anxious to ensure that there is a sufficiency of vessels available to deal with any pollution in the area of country concerning the hon. Member for Banff. It presents a problem. However, I do not think that the same problem is presented on the east coast of Scotland.

Mr. Fell: The Minister will recall that I asked his right hon. Friend to find out what had happened to the compensation to Yarmouth, through the Norfolk county council, for the money expended by it on the"Eleni V"disaster.

Mr. Davis: The local authorities concerned asked us to put forward a consolidated claim. Therefore, the Government will have to wait until the last claim comes in. We are still waiting to hear from the Kent authority. We have referred back the claim of Essex asking for more detail because of the inadequacy of detail provided.
I apologise to the House for having taken so long. However, right hon. and hon. Members have expressed a great deal of concern and not a little criticism. I believe that people in my Department have worked hard day and night through these difficult episodes and that they deserve the compliments of the House rather than constant rebukes.
This applies to all of those in the oil companies, the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere who have worked assiduously


in dealing with the successful handling of the"Christos Bitas"and the not so successful handling of the"Eleni V ". Theirs is a difficult task. Successful operations are attributed to good fortune, while less successful ones are said to be due to incompetence. I congratulate those in my Department and elsewhere upon what they have done. I believe that basically the House appreciates the service they have rendered to the country, which has been of immeasurable benefit.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I had not intended to take part in this debate. I asked for certain information and it has just been given to me. I am grateful to the Minister for giving me this information, but I find it astonishing that he should be keeping Norfolk county council —[Interruption.) I am sorry. The Minister was so summary in his answer that he did not say anything about Norfolk county council asking that its claim should be put in with those of Kent and Essex and so on. We ought to have a full explanation. People are waiting for a lot of money. My local authority of Yarmouth is owed well over £300,000. Interest charges are mounting up at the rate of about £150 a day. Is there no way of pressing the other county councils for whom we are waiting? I suppose that they are asking for smaller amounts than Norfolk. I do not understand why Norfolk should have to wait. The figures were sent in on 18th October.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The consolidating of claims was a procedure adopted by the hon. Gentleman's local authority. I said that in my speech. If the local authority had wanted to pursue its own claim, which would have been more difficult, it was at liberty to do so. I did not stand in the way of that.

Mr. Fell: I heard about the consolidation of claims, but I assumed that it referred to consolidation by the Norfolk county council of the claims made by the various district authorities. When was this great meeting, when the county councils came together and decided that everyone would wait for the slowest authority? It seems such an extraordinary procedure that it is almost unbelievable. I do not understand how it happened. Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to make some sort of statement to the House or write a letter to me saying when these moneys will be paid?

Mr. Davis: I shall write the hon. Member a letter. I promise.

Mr. Fell: I am grateful for that promise.

Mr. Emery: It would be helpful if the Minister would say in this letter whether the interest rates, which have to be met by the local authorities, can become part of the claim. As long as those interest rates which accrue are met, there need be no concern.

Mr. Fell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I imagine that the voice from the Government Front Bench which was heard to say"You are pushing it too far"when my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) intervened was not referring to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but to my hon. Friend and to me. I do not intend going any further than this. I wanted an answer of a reasonable kind. Now that the Minister has told me he intends to write to me, I shall not press this any further.

Mr. Joseph Dean: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITION

High Court Attendances (Officers of the House)

10.30 p.m.,

Mr. Ian Mikardo: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition from Miss Margaret Alison Brown who seeks leave, in accordance with the practices and principles of our procedure and precedents, to quote in connection with an action which is before the court passages from evidence submitted to one of the Select Committees of the House and from a speech made in the House by one of my right hon. Friends.
The petition is lengthy and the House might consider it adequate if I supplement the brief but I hope clear description that I have given of its contents by reading only the last. paragraph of the, petition. It states:
Wherefore, your petitioner prays that reference may be made in the action presently proceeding in the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, referred to herein to the said Minutes of Evidence and transcript of the said speech and that leave be given to the proper Officers of the House formally to prove the same according to their competence.
And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Ordered,
That leave be given to the proper Officers of this House to attend the trial of the said action and to produce the said Minutes of Evidence and Report of Debate; and that leave be given for reference to be made to the said Minutes of Evidence and Report of Debate.—[Mr. Mikardo.]

FLIXBOROUGH CHEMICAL PLANT (REBUILDING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Grant.]

10.33 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: On 1st June 1974 an explosion of great magnitude occurred at Flixborough, in my constituency. It killed 28 people and did substantial damage in villages surrounding the factory. This raised issues about the safety of chemical plants which reverberated round the world.
There was a public inquiry. All the facts were investigated. Arising from that and the recommendations, the company, Nypro (UK) Ltd., instituted a poll in the villages on the advisability of reopening the plant. The company said that the new plant would be the safest plant that 'it was possible for man to originate, devise or plan. No qualifications were attached to that statement. It was to be the safest plant possible for man to build. Because of that, and certain planning proposals, I wish to raise the matter of rebuilding the plant.
I heard by way of rumour that the company was seeking a section 8 grant to put railway sidings or to update facilities so that chemicals might be dealt with and to bring in phenol. The company told me that discussions had been held with two major phenol suppliers—Shell and ICI—together with British Rail with a view to applying to the Minister for a section 8 grant. The company said that it would keep me informed about the preliminary discussions that were held at the first meeting. The company made it clear that it expected to get the whole of the 50 per cent. grant since what it was proposing was not an economic proposition and it would cost it more to get the phenol by rail than by road.
After the first meeting the company wrote to me again. I should make it clear that section 8 grants are concerned only with bulk. When a Minister takes a decision under that section his aim is to get bulk traffic off the road and on to the railways, so no safety considerations enter into the matter. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take note of that deficiency in the legislation. In determining section 8 grants, safety aspects as well as the amounts of freight involved in the move from road to rail should be considered.
The company reckoned that it would cost between £1.6 million and £1.8 million. The company's managing director wrote to me about the building of the A18—M180 roundabout to Neap Corner motorway extension. He said:
 I find it interesting that the last costing that was made for stage one of the north-west orbital road indicated that it would cost £750,000 to £800,000 which equates almost exactly with the level of grant that would have been necessary had the movement of phenol by rail proceeded. As the major environmental problem is the final road access to the Nypro plant then money spent on alleviating this could


be more cost effective to the region and reduce the incidence of lorry nuisance by a greater amount than the Nypro scheme would have done.
I telephoned the managing director, saying that I was prepared to put his case to the Minister. I offered my best offices, but the company replied that it was not interested in appealing to the Minister at that time. The Minister also made it clear to me that he was willing to consider giving the company a grant smaller than 50 per cent. The company made it equally clear that it was not interested at that stage in pursuing that application.
Here, then, was the first major change from the pledge that was given about the plant being the safest possible. It was proposed that the phenol would not now be delivered by rail. But that change paled into insignificance compared with the next development. It arose from the fact that Nypro used as feedstock for the manufacture of caprolactam natural gas delivered by pipeline. Then came the bombshell. The company announced that its contract, under which it bought the gas at 3·23p per therm, was subject to negotiation. The company stated:
 In practice we are being asked to pay 13·5p/therm for interruptible supplies and 17·5p/therm for firm supplies.
The case that the company made was that if it was to have to meet these charges the plant could not be profitable in the foreseeable future. It therefore submitted a planning application to the Glanford borough council seeking permission to store butane, and to bring it in by road tanker. That happened just after the road tanker explosion in Spain, and my constituents, not least those who had worked at the plant, were most concerned. The workers there, who had seen 28 of their comrades die, want the plant to be built, but they want the safest plant possible. The Scunthorpe borough council protested at the news. The trades council made similar representations. The planning application then went forward.
Negotiations were and still are going on between Nypro and British Gas. I wrote to Sir Denis Rooke, who replied to me:
 It is not our understanding that the plant could not be viable at the up-to-date price for natural gas.
If it could be shown that safer procedures could be adopted but that the profit

margins would not allow that to happen, I should be prepared to ask the Secretary of State whether aid could be afforded to the operation. However, the company has never given me those details. It is felt in my constituency that the company made the planning application to strengthen its arm in negotiation with British Gas.
It is true that the boom days for the product of caprolactam in the making of nylon are not as good as they were in profit terms. But that matter is still to be decided. If I am given the facts and figures, I am still willing to take a deputation to see the Secretary of State for Energy.
The main point I wish to make is that firms should pay for their own safety in the first instance. The pledge that was given was that the plant would be the safest man could devise. On that basis the company went forward with its planning application to Glanford borough council. I thought that the council would kick out that application on the grounds that it was premature because negotiations between British Gas and Nypro were still continuing.
An additional ground revealed at the meeting was that the recommendation that was required had not been given by the Health and Safety Executive. I hope that the Minister will refer to that matter. I made inquiries into this major matter. Those concerned were determined to do a specific job, but they were not in a position to supply that information.
To my surprise, the Glanford borough council passed the planning application, but entered a remarkable caveat. It said that the application was subject to any recommendation it might receive from the Health and Safety Executive. One cannot prejudge what the Executive will say to the council. However, it was a remarkable decision which will affect not only this case but many others.
What is the position in respect of the Executive? If the Minister cannot tell me this evening, I hope that he will write to me. I have written to the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, Mr. Bill Simpson, on this topic, and, although he replied to say that he did not place the same emphasis as I do on the safety element in natural gas compared with butane in road tankers. I in turn


replied that natural gas was preferable. I await his reply.
What happens if Mr. Simpson recommends anything else? I have received a petition from residents in the area which reads:
We request you to investigate the way planning permission has been given by the Glanford borough council to Nypro (U.K.) Ltd. for the storage of 1,200 tonnes of butane gas. In view of the inherent risk, and since there are safer fuels available that are commercially viable, we ask that this permission be revoked.
What is the situation in respect of Glanford borough council? I believe that it has given its decision. There is no appeal from the decision, even to the Secretary of State for the Environment. A total of 600 of my constituents want something to be done. We are awaiting the recommendation of the Health and Safety Executive.
Pledges were given to my constituents that this would be the safest plant that could be humanly devised, but that concept is now being ignored.
I believe that my constituents have every right to be concerned about the storage of butane gas in bulk. This will also affect a village near my constituency called Amcotts, and I am concerned about its inhabitants as well as my own constituents. A major explosion has happened in the past, and they are very much concerned about the future.
I shall do everything I can in this House to set aside this decision. I hope that many outside the House will hear my plea and that it will be possible, even at this stage, for Nypro to reach an accommodation with British Gas.
I think that it is a criticism of Glanford borough council that it has handled the matter as it has. I look to my hon. Friend for help in ensuring that we do not make use of butane storage and movement by road tankers. I believe that we ought to have the stage I orbital road, but even if that is built—which is a matter for the county council anyway, and we hope to see it done—it will remain vital that we make the plant as safe as possible. I believe and hope that that could and should be achieved by transporting natural gas by pipeline rather than by storing large amounts of butane and moving it by road tankers to the plant.

10.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) has drawn attention to a number of extremely important problems, and I can fully understand the concern which he has expressed on behalf of his constituents. I assure him at the outset that that concern is shared by the Health and Safety Commission, and I hope to show that the Commission is fully alive to these problems and is giving them considerable attention. I ought to add that, as my hon. Friend knows, some of the topics which he has raised bear on responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport.
It is essential to stress first of all that the chemical process to be used by Nypro (U.K.) Limited at Flixborough is quite different from that which was being carried on when the tragic explosion occurred on 1st June 1974. The new plant is to be used to make caprolactam, the basic material used for the production of nylon fibres and certain engineering products, by the hydrogenation of phenol instead of by the oxidation of cyclohexane which was the process in operation when the disaster occurred.
Before the new plant was built, the planning authority sought the views of the Health and Safety Executive on the planning application and it was advised that the basic features of the plant were orthodox and no reasons could be found to expect a serious failure of containment such as occurred on 1st June 1974 that the plant did not have the potential for producing a vapour cloud of the same order of magnitude as that of June 1974 and that if, notwithstanding all the precautions to be taken either during the construction of the plant to satisfactory standards or its subsequent operation and maintenance to the highest standards, there should occur a serious leakage of chemical liquid or of gas leading to a fire or explosion, then on the basis of experience it was considered that serious effects would be confined to the section of the plant where failure occurred. The conclusion of the Health and Safety Executive was that, on grounds of health and safety, there were no reasons why the planning authority should object to the proposals.
Then the Secretary of State for the Environment directed that the application be referred to him for decision, and a local public inquiry was held. At the inquiry the safety aspects of the development were fully debated. The inspector who conducted the inquiry recommended that the application be approved, subject to appropriate conditions, and the Secretary of State accepted this recommendation.
Construction of the plant was then begun. During all stages of construction, inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive have maintained a close watch on developments. Frequent inspections of the site have been carried out, including visits by specialist inspectors with particular knowledge of the processes involved. I understand that the local factory inspector considers that the plant has been monitored over the past four years to a depth that has never previously been undertaken by the factory inspectorate. These visits will, of course, continue when the plant becomes operational as part of the normal enforcement programme carried out by the Health and Safety Executive in accordance with the terms of the Health and Safety at Work etc., Act 1974. That Act, as the House knows, requires every employer to ensure the safety not only of his own employees but of all other people who may be affected by his undertaking.
My hon. Friend has referred to the use of road transport for delivering phenol to the plant and to the consideration given by Nypro, and its suppliers, Shell Chemicals and ICI, to the use of rail for this purpose. That would have involved very heavy capital expenditure on rail facilities, and this was the subject of an application—my hon. Friend referred to this also —by the three firms made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for a grant under section 8 of the Railways Act 1974. My hon. friend has been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Transport about this case, and he understands, I know, the reasons why the Department operating, as it must, the well established criteria for payment of this grant, was able to offer a contribution of £200,000 towards the capital cost of rail facilities. That offer reflected the judgment of the Department of Transport of the environ-

mental benefits to be obtained by avoiding the road tanker traffic—estimated at 12 loaded road tankers a day—needed to supply phenol to the Flixborough plant. My hon. Friend will not expect me now to go into the full arguments surrounding the section 8 grant application.
As my hon. Friend has already explained, earlier this year Nypro announced that it was giving serious consideration to the use of butane, a form of liquefied petroleum gas, in place of natural gas as feedstock for the production of hydrogen; this is subsequently used in the process to synthesise caprolactam. This arises because the existing contract for the supply of natural gas to the Flixborough plant ends in 1979 though I understand that constructive negotiations between Nypro and the British Gas Corporation are continuing. The terms offered by British Gas Corporation for the continued supply of natural gas are such that the company has been considering plans for the use of butane instead.
Nypro's proposals would mean the transport of butane by road tankers instead of natural gas being conveyed to the site by pipeline. In his speech tonight and on a number of previous occasions my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the safety implications of the change. The relative risks involved are by no means clearcut. There have been accidents involving natural gas pipelines. The energy available from the pressure at which gas is conveyed in a pipeline as well as from ignition of any significant escape can be very large. On the other hand, serious consequences can arise if the contents of a road tanker escape and are ignited.
In neither activity can a guarantee of absolute safety be given. At the same time, if proper forethought in planning and care in operation are taken, the risks in both methods of conveyance can be minimised, and the record in this country shows that actual injury and damage by either method has been small. It will be the responsibility of Nypro and its suppliers to ensure that whatever choice they make the requirements in the Health and Safety at Work etc., Act 1974 are met.
My hon. Friend has said that he has been in touch with the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission to intervene to influence their choice. However,


the Health and Safety Executive's concern is to ensure that whatever the ultimate choice adequate precautions appropriate to the risk are taken. The chairman of the Health and Safety Commission has therefore asked the Health and Safety Executive to draw Nypro's attention to the need for ensuring adequate precautions for its installation and that those responsible for undertaking the conveyance of dangerous substances to the site are fully aware of their safety responsibilities in that operation, and to take that into account in making their decision on the choice of feedstock.
The Government understand the public concern with the possible dangers arising from any accidents involving the road transport of flammable gases such as butane. People living near Flixborough —for example, in the village of Gunness —or on the outskirts of Scunthorpe are only too conscious of the numbers of heavy lorries, including tankers, using what are clearly substandard roads to get access to the Flixborough plant. We recognise that the risk of traffic accidents, and their possible consequences if one of the vehicles were carrying a dangerous chemical, is considerably greater than it would be if a modern road could be provided.
The responsibility for local roads lies with the Humberside county council. The Department of Transport fully recognises the strong reasons of both safety and environment for making the necessary resources available through transport supplementary grant to finance a road scheme to improve access to Flixborough in the way that the council has in mind.
Apart from the transport implications, the changeover would mean significant alterations to the plant itself. It would be necessary to instal a road tanker unloading point and facilities for the bulk storage of butane. Butane would be stored in three horizontal tanks of 400 tonnes capacity each. Planning approval for the provision of these facilities is needed and Nypro has submitted a planning application to Glanford borough council. The council has, as in the case of the rebuilding of Flixborough, sought the views of the Health and Safety Executive and its specialist inspectors are studying the proposal.
I am surprised at the course of events relating to the council's decision to grant planning permission without waiting for the Health and Safety Executive's advice. I understand that this is unusual but I do not think that my hon. Friend will expect me to comment further tonight. Nor would it be right for me to speculate as to the company's motives in putting in a planning application at this stage of its negotiations with the British Gas Corporation. However, I make no apology for the time being taken by the Health and Safety Executive to examine these plans, because as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, it is not an easy matter to determine, and it is right that the Health and Safety Executive should consider these proposals very carefully—indeed, stringently—before deciding on the view that it should take.

Mr. John Ellis: It will be a very interesting situation should the Health and Safety Executive come down, as I believe that it must—and I have asked a direct question—to the view that for safety reasons it might be unsafe to store such large amounts, or, alternatively, if it follows my view that, in safety considerations, the safest method, after considering all the pros and cons, is natural gas by pipeline. What will happen in regard to the planning decision then?

Mr. Grant: That is a very interesting point. I said just now that it is a very unusual situation. Because it is so unusual, I shall not seek to answer my hon. Friend's question now. This is something that we shall look into. I shall certainly come back to my hon. Friend on that point, because clearly it is important. However, I am assured that the Health and Safety Executive is likely to provide the planning authority with an appraisal in the very near future.
I think that it will already be clear from what I have said that the Health and Safety Executive is closely involved in all aspects of activities at the Flixborough plant. As my hon. Friend has, at least by implication, touched on a number of matters of general application concerning safety, I want to make a brief comment about the Health and Safety Commission's proposals for future controls in this area.
The Commission has announced its intention of putting forward proposals


for regulations based on the recommendations of the advisory committee on major hazards. A consultative document containing its proposals for Hazardous Installations (Notification and Survey) Regulations was published earlier this year for comment by interested parties. The proposed regulations would require occupiers of installations where specified substances are being kept, manufactured, processed or used, to notify the Health and Safety Executive of their activities; and, where these activities are being carried out on a sufficient scale, to carry out a hazard survey and to report the results to the Health and Safety Executive.
Among the substances listed in a schedule to the regulations which sets out the criteria for deciding whether an activity is within the scope of the regulations is liquefied petroleum gas, and the quantity for which a survey is required is 300 tonnes. So if these regulations are in due course adopted they would apply to the activity which is the subject of the Nypro planning application, and the firm would have to carry out a hazard survey of its activity and report the results to the Health and Safety Executive.
If when the Health and Safety Executive has studied the hazard survey report

it considers it appropriate to do so, it would be able to call for more information in the shape of a detailed assessment, and the matters on any of which a detailed assessment may be called for are set out in another schedule to the proposed regulations. In the light of the information supplied in the hazard survey and the detailed assessment, if one is called for, the Health and Safety Executive would then consider what additional enforcement action, if any, should be taken at the installation in question.
I think that this serves to demonstrate how the Health and Safety Commission is tackling the problem of potentially hazardous industrial sites. I can assure my hon. Friend that it will at all times have full regard for the safety of both the employees at the plant and the people living round about, and I shall ensure that the concern which he has quite properly expressed tonight is brought to the attention of the Health and Safety Commission.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.